checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, but the description declares the behavior as identical to checkpoint_story and directs the agent to that tool's docstring for full details. This is sufficient for an alias, though it does not independently describe the behavior here.

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?

Extremely concise, front-loaded with the deprecation status, and every sentence earns its place. It conveys the essential information (alias, identical behavior, preference for the canonical tool) with zero waste.

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 deprecated alias, the description is complete: it tells the agent that the tool is a backward-compatible shim, points to the full documentation, and provides the parameter names. Nothing more is needed for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 0%, the description explicitly lists the parameter names (plan_name/story_key/step/summary/next_hint) and points to the canonical docstring for full semantics. This compensates for the missing inline documentation by directing the agent to the authoritative source.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for checkpoint_story, stating it has identical behavior and parameters. This is specific and distinguishes it from the canonical sibling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (backward compatibility only) and when not to (prefer checkpoint_story in new code). It also names the alternative directly, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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