checkpoint_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that standalone checkpoints are included by default, which is a useful behavioral detail, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, default filter behavior, or output structure, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a practical use case. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 11 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description conveys the basic purpose and one inclusion behavior but does not explain the remaining filter semantics, return shape, or defaults. An agent could make a basic call, but would struggle to use the tool confidently for targeted verification workflows.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 11 parameters. It adds meaning for status, target, Plan, and ChainScope filters, but leaves many parameters such as limit, locale, projectRoot, taskContextId, unassignedOnly, and includeStructured entirely unexplained. The compensation is only partial and insufficient for full correct usage.

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 checkpoints, a specific resource, and identifies key filtering dimensions: status, target, Plan, and ChainScope. The added note about including standalone checkpoints not referenced by any Plan clarifies an important inclusion edge case, making the purpose specific and useful.

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 explicitly says to use this for a compact verification inbox and contrasts it with opening every entity, giving clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not name a sibling alternative like checkpoint_record, but the use-case guidance is direct and actionable.

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