tarn_get_run_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool is read-only and does not load artifact payloads. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's lightweight, non-destructive nature. Additional details about error handling or required privileges are omitted, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second clarifies a key behavioral constraint. This is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simple list-style tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its scope. It could be improved by briefly noting the format of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity, the current description is mostly 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (cwd and run_id) with detailed documentation including defaults and allowed formats. The tool description adds no further information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'artifact paths plus existence flags for a specific run'. It also clarifies what it does not do ('Does not load any artifact payload'), which helps distinguish it from potential sibling tools that might load payloads. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by name.

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 when to use the tool by stating it only returns paths and existence flags and does not load payloads. This suggests using it when only metadata is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct references to alternative tools for loading payloads.

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