List checkpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the basic read operation without disclosing side effects, permissions required, behavior when directory does not exist, or output format. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the surface-level listing action.

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 a single, concise sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It starts with the verb and contains no filler words. Every part of the description adds value, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the key concept of namespacing but does not clarify what a checkpoint label looks like or what the output format is. For a list operation, more detail about the returned data would improve completeness.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the namespace concept for checkpoints per directory, which aligns with the parameter description. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'existing checkpoint labels for a project directory'. It explicitly notes that checkpoints are namespaced per directory, which differentiates this tool from siblings that may create or restore checkpoints. The title 'List checkpoints' reinforces the purpose.

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 tells what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like sh_checkpoint, sh_restore, or sh_run. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool's function.

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