List recent checkpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that checkpoints are auto-saved on successful compiles and describes the return content and ordering. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but this is strongly implied by 'list' and the absence of any mutation language.

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, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every clause adds value—the auto-save context, the returned fields, and the specific use cases. No redundant phrasing.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers what it returns (fields and ordering) and when to use it, including integration with show_diff. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently describes the output structure.

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 provides 100% coverage for the lone 'limit' parameter, including a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 recent checkpoints, specifying the fields (sha, timestamp, file/line-change stat) and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning use with show_diff and summarizing multi-step sessions.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to find a sha for show_diff or to cite saved versions, providing clear context for when to use it. It also implies an alternative (show_diff) in the workflow.

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