List earlier save checkpoints

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first, GM notes are excluded by default, and includeSecrets controls their visibility. It does not discuss rate limits or error conditions, but for a read-only list tool this is solid 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core behavior ('player-safe checkpoint recaps newest first') is front-loaded, and the security-sensitive GM note caveat is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is listed, in what order, and under what conditions secret content appears. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on pagination, but 'newest first' plus the beforeId field make it inferable.

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 documents worldId and includeSecrets but leaves limit and beforeId undocumented (50% coverage). The description partially compensates by clarifying includeSecrets semantics ('in an authorized GM context') and implying cursor behavior via 'newest first', but it never explains how beforeId or limit affect the response.

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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('player-safe checkpoint recaps'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes the read operation from siblings like create_checkpoint and apply_world_changes, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to differentiate.

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 phrase 'player-safe' and the note about 'authorized GM context' imply the player vs. gamemaster use case, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_events or get_world_overview. The usage context is clear by implication, not by directive.

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