list_artifacts

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that artifacts are 'immutable' but does not state return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or any side effects. For a list operation, key behavioral details like potential large result sets or ordering are absent.

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 wasted words. The verb and resource are placed first, and every word contributes to understanding the core operation.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, it is reasonably simple, but the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency (e.g., whether it returns all artifacts or paginated results). The absence of any mention of output structure or edge cases leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that task_id identifies the task, but does not clarify whether it is the task's ID, its format, or that it is required (though schema marks it required, but that's not in the description). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (artifacts) with a clear scope (committed by a task). It implicitly distinguishes from get_artifact (singular vs. plural) and list_tasks (different resource). The phrase 'immutable artifacts' adds specificity, though it could be more explicit about the distinction from get_artifact.

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 like get_artifact or list_tasks. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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