rms_checkpoint_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that checkpoints are returned newest first, with full pending text, and filtered by status. However, it does not mention pagination, limits, or what happens if no checkpoints match, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence, efficiently packed with key information: purpose, ordering, content, and filtering. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list checkpoints with filter) and absence of output schema, the description covers sorting, content, and filtering adequately. It could mention pagination or maximum results, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by stating the default value for 'status' ('default all') and explaining when the 'project' parameter is needed ('when the MCP client did not provide a workspace root'). This goes beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('checkpoints'), the context ('for the current project'), and key attributes ('newest first', 'with full pending text'). It also specifies a filter parameter, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like rms_checkpoint_load.

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 implies the tool is for listing checkpoints with filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use rms_checkpoint_load instead). However, the context is sufficiently clear from the sibling tool names and the description of the filter options.

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