List artifact review requests

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the scoping constraint ('exact artifact versions') and the authority requirement, which are not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: front-loaded with purpose, then constraint. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the response format (e.g., list of version IDs, metadata). However, for a simple listing tool with good annotations and two parameters, the description is mostly adequate except for the missing return value explanation.

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. However, the description only hints at filtering by approval status indirectly ('awaiting or carrying a human review decision') but does not explain the status parameter or project_id parameter. The enum and format in schema help, but the description adds no additional meaning for the parameters.

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 uses specific verbs ('List') and resources ('artifact versions awaiting or carrying a human review decision'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'list_approval_requests' (which likely lists all approval requests, not artifact-specific ones) and 'list_artifacts' (which lists artifacts themselves).

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 states a usage prerequisite ('Requires separately delegated artifact review authority'), which helps the agent determine if the tool is applicable. However, it does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_artifact_version' or 'reject_artifact_version'.

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