session-list_checkpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure burden and does so via the explicit '(read-only)' qualifier. It also clarifies the 'all objects' behavior when the object parameter is omitted. It could add more about return shape or ordering, but for a simple list operation the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: the action, the resource, the optional scoping, and the read-only nature.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, scope semantics, and safety. It does not describe the return format or checkpoint details, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the tool description must explain the parameter. It does state that the object is optional and that omitting it lists checkpoints for all objects, mirroring and reinforcing the schema title. With only one optional parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List stored checkpoints for an object, or all objects'. It also distinguishes this from siblings like session-checkpoint and session-revert by framing it as a listing operation, not a create/revert action.

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 implies usage by noting the optional object parameter and the read-only nature, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over session-checkpoint or session-revert. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, though the simple tool shape makes the implied usage fairly clear.

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