List recovery checkpoints

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing two key behaviors: it lists bounded manifests (implying pagination or limits) and separately reports corrupt entries. This goes beyond what annotations provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence clarifies a critical behavioral constraint. No extraneous 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits, and an output schema exists (though not shown). However, it fails to document any parameters, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to invoke 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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not explain the purpose or usage of limit, status, or scanLimit, forcing the agent to infer from names and schema constraints alone. This is inadequate compensation.

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 it lists bounded checkpoint manifests and reports corrupt entries, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it never restores or deletes files, contrasting with tools like tiled_preview_checkpoint_restore and tiled_preview_checkpoint_prune.

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 for inspection without modification, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or prerequisites. The statement 'never restores or deletes files' provides indirect context but is not a full usage guideline.

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