checkpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'free local git plumbing' adds useful context, but it does not describe what exactly is returned, whether anything is hidden, or any limitations of the local git-based mechanism.

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 one concise sentence with an informative clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place and nothing redundant or filler is included.

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 simplicity of the list operation and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It doesn't mention output shape or pagination, but for a simple checkpoint listing tool this is not a major gap.

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%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions about pass explicitly, never guessing project, and re-arm session tokens. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the word 'this project'.

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 clear resource ('recorded checkpoints for this project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also differentiates from sibling tools like checkpoint (likely creation) and rollback (likely restoration) by focusing on the listing action.

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 gives clear context that this is for the current project and implies listing use, but it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives such as git_log or checkpoint. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion conditions are provided.

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