list_task_artifacts

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the specific behavior of returning file metadata (sizes, update times) rather than just filenames. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as missing directories, empty results, or whether subdirectories are traversed.

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 extra words. It clearly states the action, target, and the key attributes returned.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic summary of output (files, sizes, update times) but omits details like return format, sorting, pagination, and error conditions. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent that needs to rely on the output.

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 has zero description coverage for the only parameter, taskId, and the description does not explain what this identifier refers to or how it should be formatted. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond that, leaving the agent to infer the expected value.

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 a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'reverse task artifact directory', and it specifies the data returned (files, sizes, update times). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_pages' which deals with pages rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected or any exclusions. Sibling tools like 'list_pages' or 'collect_code' could overlap, but no differentiation is offered.

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