List project artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: artifacts are 'durable', the operation returns only the 'latest immutable version', and it explicitly says 'without returning stored bytes', which clarifies the response scope. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence of 13 words. It starts with the verb 'List' and resource, then adds two concise qualifiers ('durable' and 'without returning stored bytes'). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior: listing artifacts and their latest versions without returning bytes. It does not specify response fields, pagination, or ordering, but for a simple list operation with strong annotations, this is sufficient. Some might expect mention of prerequisite permissions, but the readOnlyHint mitigates that gap.

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 does not mention project_id at all. Although the single parameter is self-explanatory from the tool name and schema, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and does not explicitly connect the parameter to the tool's action. The agent is left to infer that project_id identifies the project for which artifacts are listed.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('durable project artifacts and each latest immutable version') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not return stored bytes. This differentiates it from get_artifact and prepare_artifact_download, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 listing artifact metadata without retrieving content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artifact or prepare_artifact_download. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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