List checkpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: checkpoints are project-scoped and survive saving, which tells an agent about state persistence. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the output format ('rows [label, changes ago]') and then adds a meaningful behavioral fact about persistence. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the result and the persistence behavior. It is slightly cryptic in phrasing and does not mention usage context, but the tool's simplicity and annotations make it adequately complete.

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 for the description to add. With 0 parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing irrelevant 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 title and tool name make clear this is a listing operation ('List checkpoints'), and the description confirms the resource by describing what a checkpoint is and what its rows contain. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'checkpoint', so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'checkpoint' or 'undo'. The persistence note ('survives saving') lightly implies a use case, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative tool routing are provided.

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