list_checkpoints

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns history with timestamps, ordered newest first, default limit, and project_dir resolution. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers main behavior without need for additional detail like auth or rate limits.

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 distinct sections: one-line purpose followed by Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, front-loaded with key 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 an output schema exists (assumed) and parameters are fully described, no gaps remain. Siblings are accounted for by distinctive purpose. Simple list tool fully covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description adds essential meaning: limit default and max count, project_dir default and resolution strategy. This goes beyond type info in schema, making parameters clear.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'checkpoint history' with ordering (newest first) and content (timestamps). Differentiates from siblings like get_checkpoint and save_checkpoint by being a list operation.

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?

Provides clear context: lists checkpoints for a project. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and distinguishable from siblings.

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