list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses that artifacts expose a status field that flips to 'completed' — a real behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it omits any mention of pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for a list endpoint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the polling use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing operational context (the polling workflow). It is close to complete; only ordering/pagination expectations are unstated.

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%: both notebook_id and the kind filter's enumerated values are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: listing generated Studio artifacts within a notebook. It naturally separates itself from siblings like generate_artifact and download_artifact by virtue of the 'list' verb and the notebook scoping.

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?

It gives a concrete usage scenario — polling a generation started with wait=false — and explains the readiness signal to look for. This is clear context, but it does not state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives (e.g. download_artifact once status is completed).

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