list_artifacts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation by stating 'List artifacts'. It discloses behavioral traits like default ordering ('newest first') and pagination via 'next_cursor', which go beyond annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists filters, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all filter options and pagination. It mentions returning a 'page of artifact records' and a 'next_cursor', which is sufficient. Minor gap: no detail on the structure of each artifact record, but the tool is likely used with other tools that provide that context.

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 only 11%, but the description compensates by explaining all filter parameters: session_id, agent_id, filename, content_type, created_after/before, and metadata key-value pairs. It also notes that multi-key metadata requires Pro, adding semantic value beyond the 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 action ('List artifacts'), the resource ('owned by the calling tenant'), and the default ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_artifact (single artifact) and store_artifact (write operation).

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 provides explicit context: 'Use this to discover what an agent or pipeline produced when you only know a session or agent ID.' It mentions supported filters and pagination but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single artifact retrieval).

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