App history (checkpoints)

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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive); the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: metadata-only returns that never include source, that history survives delete_app as a tombstone, and that each checkpoint snapshots BOTH ui and manifest slots which restore_app restores as a pair.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape, then packs the scoping constraint, numbering, tombstone, and snapshot semantics into tight parenthetical clauses. Every sentence carries a distinct fact with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return-value explanation is optional, yet the description still names the fields. Combined with the tombstone and dual-slot snapshot notes, an agent has everything needed to call this and understand its relationship to restore_app and delete_app.

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 single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explicitly says name is the app identifier it lists checkpoints for — it is only inferable from 'an app's checkpoints'. It does clarify the semantics of the checkpoint number returned (oldest = 1, consumed by restore_app), which is useful but pertains to output, not input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List an app's checkpoints') and even gives the return shape {checkpoint, ts, ui_size}. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_app ('use get_app for the current source'), so an agent can separate them without opening schemas.

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?

It routes the agent to get_app for current source and names restore_app as the consumer of the checkpoint number, which implicitly defines when this tool is the right choice. It never states an explicit 'use this when' condition or a when-not, so it falls short of 5.

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