Writes a small agent state checkpoint to ISSUEOPS_STATE_DIR or ~/.local/state/issueops using safe keys, so coding agents can persist task context across runs.
Write a small agent state checkpoint to ISSUEOPS_STATE_DIR or ~/.local/state/issueops. Keys allow [A-Za-z0-9._-] and cannot contain path traversal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | State key, max 128 chars, no path separators. | |
| content | Yes | State checkpoint content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, closed-world, idempotent), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational context: the exact storage location, an environment-variable override, and the security constraint that keys cannot traverse paths. It omits overwrite semantics for an existing key and any size ceiling for content beyond 'small'.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the destination and location override come first, followed by the key constraints the caller must satisfy. Every clause carries actionable information.
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 two-parameter, non-nested tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers where data lands and what keys are legal. Remaining gaps (overwrite behavior, content size limit, directory auto-creation) are minor but would matter to a first-time caller.
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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by tightening the key rule with an explicit allowed character class [A-Za-z0-9._-], which is stricter and more actionable than the schema's 'no path separators'. It says nothing extra about the content parameter, though 'small' loosely bounds it.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Write a small agent state checkpoint'), making it immediately distinguishable from state_read, state_list, and state_prune by the write/read contrast. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full 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?
The phrase 'small agent state checkpoint' implies the intended scale and use case (persisting checkpoint data, not bulk storage), and the storage location is given. There is no explicit when-to-use versus state_maintain/state_prune guidance and no stated exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.