rollback_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('current repository') and completeness ('all' rollback points). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful contextual detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently, earning every word.

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?

For a parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description fully captures the operation's scope and purpose. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke 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 schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'rollback points' scoped to the current repository. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rollback_create and rollback_restore by focusing solely on listing existing rollback points.

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 when to use it (when you need to see available rollback points) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since the purpose is self-evident, it meets the 'implied usage' bar but lacks explicit routing.

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