list_checkpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'lists', but it does not state side effects, output format, or any limitations. The minimum is met, but it could add context about the return structure or ordering.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. It avoids redundancy.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does. It is clear that it returns a list of checkpoints and timestamps, which covers the essential requirements for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty, and the description correctly adds no parameter details since there are none. No semantic gap exists.

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 available design checkpoints and timestamps. This is a specific verb (list) on a specific resource (design checkpoints) and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like create_checkpoint or rollback_checkpoint, which perform different actions.

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 implies usage by the nature of the operation (inspect checkpoints before rollback or decision), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple listing tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not explicit.

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