active_checkpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose safety traits (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects). The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits any details about parameters, return format, or behavior beyond the basic action. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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% (no descriptions for parameters). The description does not explain the 'cwd' or 'limit' parameters at all, leaving their purpose unclear despite the schema providing types and constraints. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists active checkpoint memories and the purpose is to resume interrupted multi-step tasks. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like 'checkpoint_task' (create) and 'list_memories' (general memories).

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?

Description implies usage for resuming interrupted tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_memories'). No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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