list_ci_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and naming the returned metadata fields clarifies that the tool returns artifact metadata rather than the artifact content itself. It does not discuss authorization or pagination, but these are less critical for a simple listing tool.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives useful examples and return fields. Every phrase contributes meaning with 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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description appropriately documents the main return fields and artifact types. It slightly under-explains the overall CI workflow, but the schema and sibling tool names provide enough surrounding context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both build_action_id and limit are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning but also does not need to, given the schema's completeness.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the artifacts a build action produced', and adds concrete return fields (file name, type, size, download URL). This clearly separates it from sibling CI tools like list_ci_build_actions, list_ci_issues, and list_ci_products.

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 after a build action has been identified, and the schema reinforces that build_action_id comes from list_ci_build_actions. However, the prose does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe what to do if no artifacts exist.

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