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 a read-only listing operation and clarifies the artifact types, but does not disclose potential issues like pagination, authentication requirements, or error behaviors. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the object, the artifact types, and the scope, all in under 15 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 list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (a list of artifact types) and the required scope. It doesn't detail return format, but that is not essential for a list tool without an output schema.

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?

The schema already fully documents packageId with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool's description reinforces that the package is 'specific' but does not add extra syntax, format, or example values beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists artifacts (iFlows, mappings, scripts) within a specific integration package, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_packages (which lists packages) and get_artifact (which likely fetches a single 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 description implies usage when you need to list artifacts in a package, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. It lacks any reference to sibling tools such as list_packages or get_runtime_artifacts, so the guidance is only implicit.

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