get_runtime_artifacts

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

Given no annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation via 'List' and adds detail about the output including deployment statuses (STARTED, STOPPED, ERROR). It does not mention any potential side effects or limitations, but for a simple listing tool this is 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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key output detail. No wasted 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a low-complexity operation, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention whether it includes multiple pages or only current status, but for a basic listing this is complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'deployed runtime artifacts' and specifies the SAP CPI scope plus deployment status values, making its function clear and distinguishing it from generic list tools like list_artifacts.

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 implies usage when needing deployed artifact statuses but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_artifacts or get_system_status, nor excludes alternatives.

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