list_checkpoints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: pagination via limit + cursor with meta.nextCursor, backend defaults (limit 25, max 50), and the exact record shape. These details go beyond the annotation and tell the agent what to expect from the response.

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 dense but compact: purpose, ordering, return shape, pagination, default limits, and a routing directive all fit in four short sentences. Every sentence earns its place and no content is redundant with the schema.

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?

For a read-only list operation with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers everything needed: what is returned, how pagination works, what defaults apply, and how to distinguish it from list_branches. There is no output schema, but the description supplies the essential return contract.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description goes further by explaining the effective default limit (25), the max boundary (50), the pagination contract via meta.nextCursor, and that branchId defaults to the current branch. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw parameter names and types.

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 states a specific action ('List checkpoints'), a clear resource ('on a branch'), and a precise scope (current branch by default) with ordering ('newest first'). It also names its closest alternative, list_branches, and the distinct use case, eliminating any ambiguity between 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the checkpoint id with restore_checkpoint or hard_reset_checkpoint, linking this read tool to the related mutation tools. It also gives a clear 'When NOT to use' directive: to list branches, use list_branches, which is direct guidance an agent can act on.

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