checkpoint_refresh_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it does not auto-pass and maps changed bindings, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (if any), prerequisites (e.g., existence of an execution receipt), or what the output contains. The mention of 'recorded execution receipt' is vague without more context. It adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about not auto-passing is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, prerequisite conditions (like having a recorded execution receipt), and any indication of the return format or structure. The description gives a general sense but not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (executionId, projectRoot, taskContextId, includeStructured). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are technical and not self-explanatory. The description provides zero guidance on parameter meaning or optionality, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('List stale checkpoints') and immediately clarifies what it does not do ('Does not auto-pass checkpoints'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like checkpoint_record or checkpoint_list. It also explains the mechanism ('maps changed bindings onto retest_required items'), giving a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies usage after a 'recorded execution receipt' and clarifies it is not for auto-passing checkpoints, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when to use this vs. others. There is no 'use this when X, use Y when Z' guidance, only a negative constraint. The context is present but not fully explicit.

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