hipocampo_checkpoint

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses safety: dry_run=true is read-only, dry_run=false is destructive and irreversible (original files deleted). It also states idempotency, which adds important behavior beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with paragraphs for safety, usage, and args/returns sections. Every sentence adds value, from the log-checkpointing concept to the periodic maintenance recommendation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage context, behavioral safety, parameter effect, and return value (report with count and freed space). No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While input schema only defines dry_run as a boolean with default, the description explains the semantic difference: True shows what would be compressed, False executes irreversible compression. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Comprime memorias antiguas usando checkpointing logarítmico' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from hipocampo_maintenance by noting this tool is for standalone execution or preview, giving clear sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Para ejecutar checkpoint como parte del ciclo completo de mantenimiento, usar hipocampo_maintenance (paso 3 del ciclo). Esta herramienta es para ejecución puntual o previsualización.' This gives a clear when-to-use and alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.