List task checkpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful transparency by stating that checkpoints capture tracked and untracked files "without touching the user's index" and that restoration happens via codex_restore. It does not detail edge cases like empty git repos or corrupted checkpoints, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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 description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds important behavioral details and the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter listing tool, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, what checkpoints capture, that the operation does not touch the index, how to restore, and the git requirement. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the listing semantics are clear from the description and tool name.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter taskId is already documented in the schema as "Task whose checkpoints should be listed." The description adds contextual framing around "a task's turns" but no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List the working-tree snapshots taken around a task's turns." It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling codex_restore by noting that checkpoints "can be restored with codex_restore," making the tool's listing-only role 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list checkpoints for a task, and it points to codex_restore as the restoration alternative. It also gives a prerequisite (must be inside a git repository). It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it versus alternatives, so it is not a perfect 5.

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