Review Pending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by confirming 'Effect: read', stating human approval is not required, and detailing on-failure behaviors (login_required, project_not_selected, permission_denied, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured, using clear section headings ('Use when:', 'Do not use when:', etc.). Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers usage context, prerequisites, failure scenarios, and next steps, leaving no critical 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by clarifying that projectId defaults to the selected project and that pagination parameters are optional. This additional meaning justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool lists draft checkpoints for a selected project before they are committed or discarded. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('draft checkpoints'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like commit_checkpoint and discard_checkpoint.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('List draft checkpoints for the selected project') and when-not-to-use instructions ('a narrower tool better matches the intent, the project scope is unresolved, or the user has declined the action'). It also lists requirements (authenticated API authority, selected project) and human approval info, giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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