Record current file changes immediately as a checkpoint, skipping the quiet period. This preserves task progress for later resumption or handoff.
立即记录当前文件变化，不等静默期。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | 工作区根目录 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reads | Yes | ||
| partial | Yes | ||
| waiting | Yes | ||
| captured | Yes | ||
| drift_id | Yes | ||
| skipped_paths | Yes | skipped paths (e.g. symlinks pointing outside the workspace) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral context by saying the tool records immediately and does not wait for a quiet period. However, it does not disclose effects on existing state, prerequisites, or any failure/side-effect behavior beyond that.
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?
The description is a single, purposeful sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and then adds the key timing nuance, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the low parameter count, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the many sibling tools (tc_init, tc_save, tc_show, etc.) create a need for more workflow context, and the description does not explain how capture fits in or what happens after capture.
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%, with the single parameter 'root' already described as '工作区根目录' (workspace root directory). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents 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?
The description states a clear action and resource: '立即记录当前文件变化' (immediately record current file changes). It also distinguishes the tool's behavior with '不等静默期' (not waiting for quiet period), but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools like tc_save or tc_init.
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 '不等静默期' implies this tool should be used when an immediate capture is needed rather than waiting for a quiet period. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as tc_save, nor any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.