checkpoint

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that checkpointing closes the session, finalizes the note, and returns a brief for the next session. It also warns about the project matching requirement, which is a critical behavioral detail not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive).

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 highly concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then add usage timing and outcome. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's core function, usage context, and a critical warning about project matching. This is sufficient for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines parameter meanings. The main description does not add parameter information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not improve upon the schema's parameter semantics.

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 tool's operation: 'Close out the current session and produce its hand-off brief.' It uses a specific verb ('close out') and resource ('current session'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'log_event' and 'get_brief' by explicitly marking it as an end-of-session action.

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?

The description provides clear context: 'Call this at the END of a session, or when the user signals they're stopping or switching context.' It explains what happens ('finalises the session note and returns the brief'), but does not explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like 'get_brief' or 'consolidate'.

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