opencode_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. The description indicates a read-only listing operation ('Lists all saved checkpoints'), which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what fields are returned, pagination/limits, or whether this is a local or server-side query. Basic behavioral transparency is present but limited.

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?

One sentence, zero wasted words. It states the action, scope, and ordering in a single efficient clause. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter list operation.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the completeness bar is lower. The description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it doesn't mention what a checkpoint contains or how many are returned, which could matter given there's no output schema to fill that gap. Acceptable but could add return-format context.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description has nothing to add. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description handles the no-parameter case appropriately.

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 'Lists all saved checkpoints sorted by recency' uses a specific verb (lists) with a clear resource (saved checkpoints) and adds scoping (all, sorted by recency). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like opencode_checkpoint (which presumably creates/manages a checkpoint). It doesn't over-specify but is unambiguous.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, given zero parameters and a read-only list operation, the usage context is reasonably implied. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set (opencode_checkpoint, opencode_status, opencode_list) offers some implicit differentiation.

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