list_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (key, version, updated_at), supports pattern matching, and shows default behavior. It does not detail ordering, case sensitivity, or potential side effects, but for a listing operation, this is adequate behavioral context.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and then add essential return-value detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and is inherently simple. The description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and return fields completely for the tool's complexity. Sibling tools are named, further enriching context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains pattern, default, and meaning. The description adds the SQL LIKE context and 'omit for all keys', but these are largely redundant with the schema. No additional parameter details are provided, so 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('checkpoint keys'), and clarifies matching via SQL LIKE syntax. It distinguishes from siblings like get_state, set_state, and delete_state by clearly indicating enumeration of keys rather than value access or mutation.

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?

Provides clear context for the pattern parameter ('Pass '%' or omit for all keys') and implies this tool is for listing keys, not retrieving individual state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_state or other alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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