vcs_list_checkpoints

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It does add the behavioral detail that only checkpoints created by the MCP tool are listed, filtering out other commits. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it requires an initialized git repo, or what the output structure looks like, though the output schema covers the latter.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters), presence of an output schema, and the clear sibling context, the description is largely complete. It could arguably mention that its purpose is to enumerate available checkpoints for potential restore/diff operations, but that is not strictly necessary for an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter description is needed, and the description adds nothing more.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('checkpoint commits created by the MCP tool'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vcs_commit_checkpoint, vcs_restore_checkpoint, and vcs_diff_with_checkpoint by focusing solely on listing checkpoints.

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 as a way to view available checkpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before restoring or diffing). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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