checkpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: discloses exact snapshot scope ('HEAD + working tree, tracked AND untracked'), cost characteristics ('Free local git plumbing — no Codex cost'), and non-destructive guarantees ('Never touches branches, history, or remotes'). This is exemplary disclosure of tool behavior and side effects.

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?

Four tightly-packed sentences, each earning its place: what it does, cost implication, when to use, and what it never does. Front-loaded with the core purpose; zero fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what gets snapshotted, cost, usage timing, and constraints. Nothing material is left undisclosed for this tool's complexity level.

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 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail about note/project/session_token, but the schema already documents these thoroughly. No transformation or format information needed; the description doesn't need to compensate, so baseline is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+outcome pattern: 'Snapshot the current repo state (HEAD + working tree, tracked AND untracked) into a local checkpoint so it can be rolled back.' It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Never touches branches, history, or remotes,' differentiating it from git_commit and clarifying rollback semantics relative to the rollback sibling.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Take one before risky edits or implement runs (implement takes one automatically).' The exclusion 'Never touches branches, history, or remotes' implies when NOT to expect persistence semantics, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative tool like git_commit for history preservation.

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