list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the trait that artifacts are 'recent generated', implying recency ordering and that it only lists existing items rather than generating or modifying them. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status or whether it returns metadata versus artifact content; the output schema partially compensates for this.

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 filler. It immediately states the verb 'List' and the resource 'artifacts', and every word earns its place.

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 an empty input schema, no required parameters, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient to select and invoke this simple listing tool correctly. The only potential gap—distinguishing listing from reading a specific artifact—is partially clarified by the sibling tool names and the verb choice, but remains implicit.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 uses the verb 'List' with the object 'recent generated quant analysis artifacts', clearly identifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as read_artifact (which reads a specific artifact) and run_quant_coding_task (which performs a task) by focusing on enumeration of existing 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?

The description implies this tool should be used to retrieve a list of recently created quant artifacts, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over read_artifact or exclude alternative tools. The usage context is implicit from the verb 'list', but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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