checkpoint_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'List saved checkpoints', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or whether it has any impact on state. There is minimal behavioral detail, such as whether it returns a snapshot or live data, which is a gap given the absence of 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and resource, and is front-loaded with the key information. There is zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what it does. Given the sibling names like checkpoint_save and checkpoint_restore, the notion of checkpoints is likely understood. However, it does not clarify what a checkpoint is or provide any details about the returned list, but this is not strictly necessary for a list operation.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty and coverage is 100% by definition. Since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema provides. It correctly omits any parameter details.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'saved checkpoints', which identifies the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_save and checkpoint_restore by being the listing operation, though it does not elaborate on the contents or format of the list. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic function.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the only way to list checkpoints, when to prefer it, or any exclusions. Siblings like checkpoint_save and checkpoint_restore are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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.