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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It fails to disclose behavior beyond listing files, such as pagination behavior, error handling for missing bundles, or ordering. The permission note is the only behavioral hint.

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 very short (one sentence plus permission note), which is concise but omits essential details. It could be restructured to front-load the purpose and then add parameter context without increasing length much.

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 lack of output schema and the number of parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination (limit parameter), return format, or ordering. For a list operation, this information is critical for correct 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters (artifactBundleId and limit). The schema provides basic constraints (type, default, min/max), but the agent receives no explanation of their purpose or how to use them.

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 resource (files in an artifact bundle). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rubrkit_list_artifact_bundles and rubrkit_list_file_versions.

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 mentions the required permission ('Requires files:read for API keys'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_artifact_file or list_file_versions. Usage is implied by the verb.

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