list_checkpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'List all checkpoints,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., completeness, ordering). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity of listing resources, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like how checkpoints are formatted or if there are limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sprite' and 'org'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List all checkpoints') and resource ('for a Sprite VM'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_sessions' or 'list_sprites', which reduces it from a perfect score. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_sessions' or 'list_sprites', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage by specifying the resource (Sprite VM), but this is minimal context without explicit when/when-not instructions.

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