list_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of read-only safety, no pagination/limit behavior, no indication of whether results are scoped to the supplied agent id or span the workspace. Only the artifact location hint is added beyond what the name conveys.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape; it says nothing about the fields, ordering, or pagination of the returned artifact list. For a listing tool whose output is the entire point, this leaves a significant 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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully ('Agent id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about how the id scopes the listing (e.g. only that agent's artifacts), so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (artifacts), and enumerates what counts as an artifact (screenshots/videos/logs) as well as the storage location (artifacts/). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the natural sibling get_artifact_url, which fetches a single artifact.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_artifact_url or get_blob, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the agent id must exist). The agent is left to infer that listing precedes fetching a URL.

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