Get assessment input artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-schema fact, the required 'assessments:read' scope, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what happens when no report exists yet.

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?

Two short sentences, the purpose front-loaded ahead of the permission note, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the auth requirement, but leaves the parameter undocumented and does not clarify how this differs from the sibling air_list_artifacts. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

There is one parameter (assessmentPid) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it, its format, or where to obtain it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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+resource ('List artifacts') and narrows it with a clear scope: artifacts used as inputs when the assessment report was generated, tied to a specific assessmentPid. It is distinguishable from the generic air_list_artifacts, though it never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 'when the assessment report was generated' implies the usage context (after a report exists) and the required scope 'assessments:read' is stated. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to the related siblings (air_list_artifacts, air_get_assessment_report).

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