trw_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output format and the survival property, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or safety characteristics. It provides sufficient transparency for a non-destructive logging tool.

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 concise, with distinct sections for purpose, usage, input, and output. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meanings, and output format. It is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity, though it lacks details on default behavior when run_path is absent.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that message is required (contradicting schema) and that shard_id and wave_id are for annotation. However, it misstates required status, reducing reliability. Schema coverage is 0% so compensation is needed, but the contradiction harms clarity.

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 clearly states the tool appends a progress snapshot for survival across context compaction. The verb 'append' and resource 'progress snapshot' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like trw_pre_compact_checkpoint or trw_heartbeat.

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 explicitly lists when to use: after a milestone or before compaction/interruption, and after each meaningful work batch. This provides clear guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or identify alternatives among siblings.

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