list_available_checkpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the return format ('List of dictionaries, each containing: - name, - description'), and states that it 'Retrieves all available' checkpoints. This goes beyond a simple restatement, though it does not mention potential side effects, auth, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a brief explanatory paragraph and a structured Returns block. Every sentence adds meaningful information—there is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

As a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides complete context: it defines the tool's purpose, what the returned data contains, and how the checkpoints relate to other tasks. There is no missing information that an agent would need 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 0 parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 begins with 'List supported Evo 2 checkpoints with descriptions,' which uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('supported Evo 2 checkpoints'). It further clarifies that these checkpoints are used for 'sequence scoring, embedding, and generation,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform those operations.

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 states the purpose is to retrieve checkpoints 'that can be used for sequence scoring, embedding, and generation,' giving clear context for when to use it (before or alongside those downstream tools). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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