checkpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses both side effects (creating a WIP commit and appending to the journal). It does not mention edge cases like permissions or failure behavior, but the core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 sentences: the first defines the action and side effects, the second gives the calling convention and purpose. Every clause earns its place and the key verb is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to call it, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, because there are no annotations and schema descriptions are absent, the incomplete parameter semantics and lack of sibling differentiation leave the overall picture only partially complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It only indirectly clarifies 'step' and 'story' through the usage context, and does not explain plan_name, summary, or next_hint. That is a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific action: record a durable checkpoint, commit WIP work, and append a journal entry. It names the exact resources involved (worktree, plan.story.journal.json) and the behavior is clearly distinct from the sibling plan/story management tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: 'after completing each idempotent step of a story'. It also explains the benefit of doing so (resume after kill). It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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