checkpoint_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states no mutation/destructive behavior, but it doesn't mention whether the tool filters by authenticated user/workspace, whether the list is sorted, whether 'unassignedOnly' semantics overlap with standalone inclusion, or what pagination/limit behavior applies. The description adds the standalone/non-referenced inclusion nuance, but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that front-load the main purpose and filter dimensions, then give a use-case recommendation. No filler.

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?

A list tool with 10 params, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the description. The returned shape of checkpoints is unknown; the inclusion condition is partially disclosed but not fully (how 'unassignedOnly' interacts, whether limit applies to the entire set, whether locale/ projectRoot are required for any filtering). Incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a partial map by naming filter categories (status, target, Plan, ChainScope) that correspond to several parameters (status, targetId/targetType, planId, chainScopeId), but it omits other params like limit, locale, projectRoot, unassignedOnly, and includeStructured. The structure is simple (all optional scalars), but with 10 params and zero schema descriptions, the description should add more.

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 it lists checkpoints with multiple filter dimensions (status, target, Plan, ChainScope) and adds a key differentiator: it includes standalone checkpoints not referenced by any Plan. This distinguishes it from other checkpoint/list tools and gives the agent a specific verb and resource.

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 on when to use it ('compact verification inbox instead of opening every entity') and implies it's a read/list tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the use-case guidance is enough to route selection.

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