rms_checkpoint_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return shape ('full body and bounded previews of linked notes'), including that previews are truncated, but says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior on an unknown name, or how the 'bounded' limit is determined.

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 waste, and the load-and-return-shape statement is front-loaded before the routing hint.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it does describe what comes back, which is the key missing piece for a loader. Minor gaps are the lack of error/not-found behavior for a 2-parameter read 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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the hint that names come from rms_checkpoint_query; it says nothing about the optional 'project' parameter's role when a workspace root is supplied.

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 ('Load one checkpoint') and adds scope detail: full body plus bounded previews of linked notes. This distinguishes it from rms_checkpoint_save and rms_checkpoint_done, though it does not explicitly contrast with rms_read for the same content.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through rms_checkpoint_query first to discover names, which is a concrete prerequisite. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., whether rms_read already returns checkpoint bodies).

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