list_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it offers almost nothing: no indication of whether results are paginated, how large the listing may be, what order they come in, or any permission requirements. 'Every artifact' hints at an unfiltered full scan but that is the only behavioral signal.

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 the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is not under-specified to the point of being a tautology, but it also has no structure beyond the one clause.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters, so the remaining burden is small. However, absent any annotations, the description should say more about the nature of the listing (completeness, ordering, scale) to be fully sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (artifacts) with a clear scope qualifier ('every ... in the store'). An agent can tell what it does, but it does not distinguish this from siblings such as inspect_artifact or compare_artifacts, which also operate on artifacts.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_artifact or export_artifact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The single sentence only asserts what the tool does, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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