commonly_list_artifacts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses output ordering (newest first), that results are metadata only with no file content, the default visibility scope (everything you can see), and the cursor-based pagination mechanism. With no output schema, these hints about return shape carry real weight, though per-item field details are not described.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope and ordering front-loaded, then semantics, then paging and the sibling handoff. The semicolon-chained parameter clauses are dense but each clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 five-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint, the definition covers scope defaults, ordering, filtering semantics, pagination, and the follow-up tool. An agent can call and iterate it correctly with no other information.

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 carry the load, and it explains four of five parameters: `kind` and its derivation from contentType including the text/html-only caveat for page, `q` matching file name, `podId` scoping vs omission meaning all pods, and `after` as the previous result's nextCursor. `limit` is left entirely undocumented.

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 plus the exact scope: list every file and page shared in the pods you belong to, newest first, metadata only. It also distinguishes itself from the read sibling by saying 'Read one with commonly_read_file (podId + fileName)', so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear calling context: use it to enumerate across all visible pods, pass podId to narrow to one, and page with `after` from `nextCursor`. It routes single-item retrieval to commonly_read_file. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement (e.g. versus commonly_list_files), which keeps it off a 5.

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