list_build_artifacts

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral details: browsing into subdirectories, return format (name, path, size, isDirectory), and filtering options (includeNested, nameFilter, pathFilter, extension). It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long, directly stating purpose and return structure. No waste, front-loaded with core information.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description specifies the return format. With 8 parameters, the description could clarify dependencies (e.g., buildId vs buildNumber+buildTypeId) or limitations (e.g., pagination). 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain parameters beyond the schema, except indirectly mentioning the 'path' parameter for browsing. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'artifact files and directories for a build'. It distinguishes from siblings like download_build_artifact by focusing on listing rather than downloading. The mention of optional subdirectory browsing further clarifies the scope.

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 artifacts and browsing subdirectories but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_build_artifact or other list tools. With many siblings, explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance would be beneficial.

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