list_checkpoints

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the session-scoped nature of checkpoints, but it does not describe output format, ordering, or how results relate to restore_checkpoint.

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 short phrase with no wasted words. It is easy to scan, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete instruction, which slightly reduces structural quality.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with non-destructive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It names the resource and scope, though it could better specify what data is returned for each checkpoint and how the list supports restore_checkpoint.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information the description must add. The parameterless baseline 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 phrase 'Checkpoint files in the current session' identifies the resource and scope, and the tool name supplies the 'list' verb. It is distinguishable from siblings like checkpoint, restore_checkpoint, and undo, though the description itself omits an explicit verb.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_checkpoint or checkpoint. The only contextual hint is 'current session', which is scope information but not usage guidance.

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