session_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful scoping detail (excludes runner internals) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not state the return format, whether the session must be active, or how errors are handled.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scoping. The parenthetical example efficiently clarifies the exclusion rule without adding fluff.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential scope and purpose. Minor gaps remain around usage compared to the sibling 'session_files' and where the session_id comes from, but these are not severe enough to make the tool unusable.

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% and the description does not explain 'session_id' at all. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, there is no guidance on where to obtain it or any valid format expectations, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('List') and clearly defines the resource ('files created by executed code in a session'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding runner internals, which separates it from the broader 'session_files' sibling.

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 context is clear—use when you need to list code-created files in a session. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'session_files', so the differentiation relies on inference.

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