list_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates that the tool returns metadata rather than content, implying a read-only listing. It does not disclose output format, failure behavior, or side effects, but for a simple list operation this is minimally acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the return values and adds the useful 'before reading content' qualifier without unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter metadata-list tool, the description covers what is returned but omits job scoping, output shape, and potential limitations. It is adequate for a simple call but leaves the agent to rely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it never mentions the required job_id parameter or explains that artifacts are scoped to a specific job. The agent is left to infer how job_id relates to the returned paths, sizes, and hashes.

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 states a specific action ('Return') on the artifacts resource and lists the exact metadata returned: canonical paths, sizes, and hashes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'before reading content' hints at the distinction from fetch_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?

The phrase 'before reading content' implies when to use this tool and suggests it should precede content-reading operations. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools such as fetch_artifact.

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