list_saved_draft_review_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that listing is scoped to the configured artifact output directory, but does not cover ordering, what happens when the directory is missing/empty, or result shape.

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 with the resource and scope stated before the optional filters. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete; only the undocumented limit parameter keeps it short of fully complete.

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%, but the description names the filter axes (draft, profile, format, subdirectory) that map to draft_id, artifact_profile, format and subdirectory. It leaves limit undocumented and gives no syntax or value hints, so it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 (List) plus resource (saved local draft review artifacts) and scope (from the configured artifact output directory). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutating sibling save_draft_review_artifact and from export_draft_review_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?

Describes what is listed and the available filters, implying the tool is for browsing previously saved artifacts. It does not state when to prefer this over save_draft_review_artifact or export_draft_review_artifact, nor any prerequisites for the configured directory.

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