replay_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write/mutation operation ('force'), but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, safety, or whether the action is reversible or idempotent.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core action, though it could benefit from more structure to include context without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 optional parameter), the description lacks essential context: what a checkpoint is, how it affects the session, and what the outcome or return value is. Without annotations, an agent may misuse the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'note' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional note describing the checkpoint'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('force a checkpoint') and the resource ('current session'). The verb is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like replay_status, replay_resume, etc. However, it does not elaborate on what a checkpoint is, slightly limiting clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as replay_status or replay_resume. The agent must rely solely on the tool name for context, which is insufficient for confident selection.

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