List Checkpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the output fields (id, name, creation time, layer count), which helps an agent understand what data will be returned. No additional behavioral context is necessary for this simple read-only list.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and output fields with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to describe return values. It is a simple read-only list with no parameters, and the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly focuses on the output fields instead.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'project checkpoints' with explicit fields (id, name, creation time, layer count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_checkpoint and restore_checkpoint, which have different actions.

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 clearly states the tool lists checkpoints, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as create_checkpoint or restore_checkpoint. The usage context is obvious from the name, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion of alternative tools.

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