list_checkpoints

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing that limit is clamped to 1–500. With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, default behavior beyond the schema, or whether the operation is purely read-only, though 'List' strongly implies that.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical clamping detail is provided in a compact parenthetical that 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description is mostly adequate, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The main gap is the undocumented platform parameter, which could cause an agent to misuse filtering or miss an important behavioral nuance.

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 description adds meaning for the limit parameter by stating the clamping range, which is genuinely useful beyond the raw schema. However, the platform parameter is entirely unexplained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so an agent is left guessing what values platform accepts, what null means, and how filtering behaves.

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 a clear resource ('incomplete work items'), so an agent knows the core action and scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names are self-explanatory enough that listing is clearly distinct from saving, loading, marking done, or checking usage.

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 this tool is for viewing incomplete work items, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of load_checkpoint, mark_done, or save_checkpoint, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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