hai_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output location and that a snapshot is created, but it does not say whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether ACTIVE_CONTEXT is modified, what happens to existing snapshots, or how project artifacts are selected. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to disk.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and destination efficiently, though it is terse enough to omit important behavioral and parameter details.

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?

With no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and a write-oriented behavior, the description is incomplete. It leaves the agent to guess when to call it, what the parameters do, and what side effects to expect.

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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. 'project_path' is only weakly implied by 'optional project artifacts', and 'note' is completely unexplained. Since there are two parameters and no schema documentation, the description does not compensate.

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 ('Snapshot') and names the resource ('ACTIVE_CONTEXT' plus optional project artifacts) and the destination path. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hai_park or hai_set_focus, though 'ACTIVE_CONTEXT' is not defined and adds some ambiguity.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hai_park, hai_intake, or hai_distill. The word 'snapshot' implies a checkpointing use case, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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