restore_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that points capture state before AI changes, which adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, order, or other behavioral details that would enrich transparency.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The first states the action and source; the second explains the purpose and usage. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the purpose and how to use the result. It lacks explicit return format or ordering details, but these are minor for a simple listing tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning by explaining what a restore point is and how it relates to the 'checkpoint' tool, which is useful despite having no params to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shadow restore points'), and clarifies it is a read operation for finding restore point IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'restore' tool which actually performs the restoration.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this to find a restore point ID for undoing a bad change'), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose implies the distinction from 'restore'.

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