list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: bodies are NOT included, only short cards. It does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, or whether results are account-scoped by auth, which leaves some behavior undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the highest-value information (what is returned, what is excluded) is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool routing.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the return fields and the body exclusion. It is nearly complete, but omits pagination/limit behavior and how to source a lane_code, which an agent would need for the filtered mode.

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% for the single lane_code parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the filter's meaning (artifacts pinned to one work lane) and that it is optional, but gives no hint about the lane_code value format or where to obtain valid codes (e.g., list_lanes).

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 (List) and resource (this account's artifacts), and enumerates the exact shape returned (id, title, kind, one-line summary, link), so the agent knows what it gets. It also names the sibling get_artifact and distinguishes itself from it, avoiding ambiguity with the other listing tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for cards, and 'call get_artifact with an id only when that artifact's full content is actually needed.' The optional lane filter condition ('only those pinned to one work lane') is also stated, so both the default and the filtered mode are covered.

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