ck_checkpoint_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds optional type filtering but no other behavioral traits (pagination, ordering, effect on session). Does not contradict annotations.

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, no filler, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

Simple list tool with annotations and output schema present. Description adequately covers main purpose and optional filter. Could mention that all parameters are optional (implied by required: []) but not necessary for completeness.

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 covers session_id and type with descriptions; limit lacks description. Description only reinforces optional type filter, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 due to 67% schema coverage.

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 verb (list), resource (checkpoints), scope (for a session), and optional filter by type. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_checkpoint_create and ck_checkpoint_restore by listing vs creating/restoring.

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?

Implies usage when viewing checkpoints, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., ck_checkpoint_restore or ck_session_digest). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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