aya_memoria_criar_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that the tool writes a sanitized checkpoint to a specific path. It does not disclose whether files are overwritten, what 'sanitized' entails, any permission requirements, side effects, or return behavior.

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 words. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of operational detail.

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 tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description providing only the action and destination is far from enough for an agent to reliably construct a valid call.

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 the description mentions no parameters at all. The agent is left to infer the meaning of tarefa, agente, resumo, testes, arquivos, and proxima_tarefa solely from their names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb ('Cria'), a clear resource ('checkpoint sanitizado'), and an explicit destination ('#Saida/tmp/checkpoints'). It distinguishes this tool from memory siblings like aya_memoria_gerar_handoff and aya_memoria_atualizar_estado by naming the checkpoint resource uniquely.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as handoff generation, state updates, or graph persistence. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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