workflow_get_related_artifacts

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context that traversal is over a persisted graph and bounded by depth, but does not describe what artifacts look like, whether results are paginated, or how depth affects the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the operation, mechanism, and constraint with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It leaves the nature of 'artifacts', the return shape, and the practical meaning of depth bounds unspecified.

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 schema itself documents neither parameter. The description compensates partially by explaining that maxDepth bounds the traversal, and taskId is self-evident from its name, but it adds no format, range, or default detail.

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 (Read), resource (artifacts related to a task), and mechanism (persisted artifact graph bounded by depth). This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent read tools like workflow_get_task_context or workflow_get_repository_graph.

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 phrase 'related to a task' implies a context but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling read tools. An agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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