list_related_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the contextual detail that artifacts are filtered by run or query, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'related' means, whether results are complete or paginated, or any behavior beyond the read-only nature already captured by annotations.

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 clean sentence without filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

While the output schema covers return structure and annotations cover safety, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It lacks optionality rules for the two parameters, behavior when arguments are omitted, and definition of 'related.' For a tool with two optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, more context is needed.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints that 'run or query' correspond to run_id and query, but does not clarify defaults, optionality, or how the two parameters interact. An agent would not know if passing both is supported or if neither results in an error.

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 'List artifacts related to a run or query' clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (artifacts) with a scope qualifier. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_project_memory, but the operation it describes is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_project_memory or get_file_context. There are no hints about when a run_id should be provided, when a query is appropriate, or whether both can be combined. The usage context is implied only by the phrase 'related to a run or query.'

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