xdr_list_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — unqualified calls fan out across all hosts, results are newest-first by default, and each row exposes command_status lifecycle values (New through Aborted) plus size in bytes. It omits total-count/pagination behavior and any permission prerequisites, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded and dense: scope first, filtering semantics second, return shape last. The status enumeration (New, Queued, Pending, ...) is somewhat list-heavy but earns its place by telling the agent how to interpret command_status. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the row fields an agent needs (id, internal_id, parts, command_status, size). Combined with annotations covering read-only safety and the schema covering pagination and ordering, an agent has enough to call this correctly without trial and error.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the combination semantics the schema cannot express: asset_id and machine_id are alternatives, and supplying neither changes the result set to all hosts. It also flags that the two id fields serve different downstream purposes, which clarifies which identifier to carry forward.

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 and resource ("List artifacts collected from hosts") and immediately grounds it with concrete examples (bug reports, logs, configs, memory dumps). It also differentiates from siblings by naming the follow-up consumers of its id fields (xdr_get_artifact_structure, xdr_download_artifact), so an agent knows this is the entry point of a workflow rather than a duplicate of xdr_search.

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?

Explains the two scoping modes clearly: filter by host via asset_id or machine_id, or omit both to sweep across all hosts, plus the default ordering (newest first). It routes to the correct downstream tools via the id/internal_id fields. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with xdr_search for text-based artifact lookup, which keeps it from a 5.

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