List undo points

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

Well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that only the account's own points are visible, that points expire after a site window of at most 7 days, and that the store is bounded (default newest 50 points / 100 MB) with oldest dropped first. It also explains a subtle non-obvious behavior: points beyond the limits are silently omitted from the list but not deleted until the next point is recorded, so listing truly changes nothing.

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 purpose and the returned payload are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence adds distinct operational facts (expiry, storage bounds, disabled state). Minor redundancy: 'Only the account's own undo points are visible' restates the opening clause about the account's own undo points.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (token, tool, kind, summary, items, bytes, created_at, expires_at, reversible plus reason, count, ttl_days) and their ordering, and explains the meaning of the non-obvious `reversible: false`. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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 `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%), including range, clamping, and default, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 and resource (list undo points) and immediately defines what an undo point is: a snapshot taken by named sibling write tools before they changed something. It is unmistakably distinct from wp_undo and wp_undo_discard, which are named and characterized at the end.

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?

"wp_undo restores a point; wp_undo_discard drops one" explicitly routes the agent to the two alternatives and clarifies that this tool is the discovery step. It also says what happens when undo is disabled site-wide. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g. it does not say listing is unnecessary if you already hold a token).

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