list_checkpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It only describes the output structure, not the behavior of invoking the tool.

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 well-structured: a clear introductory sentence followed by bullet points that detail each field. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no redundant or missing information.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully explains all output fields and mentions the current_checkpoint_id annotation. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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?

There are no input parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each output field, which goes beyond the schema's field names. This helps the agent understand the return data.

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 all checkpoints to show the complete harvesting timeline, and enumerates the fields in each record. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (like filter tools or harvest_data) by specifying it is for viewing checkpoint metadata, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies a use case (viewing timeline), but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks comparative guidance.

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