list_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool lists all artifacts and returns version codes and SHA hashes, which is helpful. However, it does not address potential limitations like pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements, leaving some 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?

The description is concise, using four short sentences that cover purpose, output, usage hint, and parameter. Each sentence adds information without redundancy, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple nature (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable level of completeness. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on edge cases, error handling, or whether 'all' is truly all. For a list operation, it is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section that describes the package_name parameter with a format example (com.example.myapp). This adds value beyond the schema's type and title, but does not fully explain constraints or accepted formats.

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 all APKs and AABs and returns version codes and SHA hashes. It specifies the resource (artifacts) and action (list), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like upload_artifact or get_track_info, though the purpose is distinct.

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 tool is useful for finding version codes to assign to a track, providing one usage scenario. However, it does not offer guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_tracks or get_track_info, leaving the agent to infer context.

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