mywork_search_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'assigned to current user' scoping idea, and says nothing about pagination behavior (despite limit/offset), ordering of results, or how 'assigned' is determined.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. But the second block merely duplicates the schema enum, a sentence that does not earn its place, while leaving more valuable information out.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 6 undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and ambiguous sibling tools, the definition leaves an agent without enough to invoke it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: limit, offset, status, priority and fields are entirely unexplained. The one parameter it does mention, artifact_type, only repeats the enum already present in the schema, adding no meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieve ... artifacts') and narrows the scope to the current user's assigned items. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the similarly named siblings product_search_artifacts and program_search_artifacts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which search surface to pick.

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 the sibling search tools, no mention of prerequisites or authentication context. The only guidance is a restatement of the artifact_type enum values, which is not usage guidance.

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