list_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation ('List') and explicitly states the return fields (filename, size, modification time). It does not mention potential error cases or sorting behavior, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 highly concise, consisting of two clear sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second details the expected output. 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the directory scope, and the return payload. It could mention edge cases such as empty directory or access errors, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand the response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful information about the return format, which compensates for the lack of parameters and provides additional context beyond the empty input 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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('artifacts directory'), and further clarifies the scope with examples (downloads, scan outputs, payloads). This makes it easily distinguishable from other listing tools like asset_list_runs or list_jobs.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to list files in the artifacts directory), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided, which is adequate but not outstanding.

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