List artifact review requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description's added context about requiring 'separately delegated artifact review authority' provides useful behavioral nuance beyond annotations. It also clarifies the scope includes versions with any human review decision, not just pending ones.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a necessary authorization prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple list tool with optional filters, the description adequately states the core function and authority requirement. However, it leaves some gaps: no mention of the optional project_id filter (though schema hints at it) and no distinction from the similarly named sibling 'list_approval_requests' beyond 'artifact.' Given the tool's simplicity and available annotations, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more explicit about return value or filtering options.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not mention the 'status' or 'project_id' parameters at all. The schema's enum and default provide some semantics, but the description fails to explain how these filters affect results, leaving potential confusion about the tool's configurable behavior.

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 exact artifact versions with human review decisions, using a specific verb (list) and resource (artifact versions). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_approval_requests' by explicitly scoping to artifacts rather than general approval requests.

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 for artifact review scenarios and notes a prerequisite (delegated authority), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_approval_requests' or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied through the artifact-specific naming rather than explicit differentiation.

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