checkpoint_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-field detail (parents, creation times) but says nothing about scope (per-VM vs global), ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting scoping and usage information that would cost only a few words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but the absence of any usage guidance or vm_name semantics leaves clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place vm_name could be explained — and it never mentions it. The parameter is self-evident from its name, so the omission is minor rather than damaging, but no added meaning is provided.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (checkpoints), and enumerates the fields returned: IDs, names, parents, creation times. It is easily distinguished from checkpoint_create/restore/delete by the verb, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus checkpoint_create, checkpoint_restore, or checkpoint_delete, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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