List checkpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context — that a checkpoint is project-scoped and survives saving — which is useful persistence information, but nothing about ordering, limits, or whether checkpoints expire.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded. The '[label, changes ago]' shorthand is compact but slightly cryptic in isolation.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns and how checkpoints relate to `edit_history`.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of the returned row shape adds a little framing but there is no parameter surface to document.

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 names the resource (checkpoints) and its origin (`edit_history`), and the title supplies the verb 'List'. An agent can tell this is a read of previously remembered checkpoints rather than a creation tool, though the sibling relationship is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of `edit_history` hints that this is the read-side counterpart, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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