ketan_get_checkpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers by specifying what checkpoints contain (workspace filesystem state, conversation prompt stack) and behavior (newest first, atomic rollback). It doesn't mention edge cases like empty lists, but this is a minor omission for a list operation.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core function and ordering; the second explains what a checkpoint is and why it's useful. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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 simple zero-parameter list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, content, ordering, and use case. No gaps remain.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the content and purpose of the checkpoints, going beyond the empty schema.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all available checkpoints'), and ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ketan_snapshot (creates) and ketan_rollback (uses) by focusing on enumeration.

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 provides clear context by explaining that checkpoints enable atomic rollback, implying this tool is used to find rollback points. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the zero-parameter interface makes usage straightforward.

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