air_get_assessment_input_artifacts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the permission requirement as extra context. But it lacks details on pagination, error behavior, or response structure. The openWorldHint is not explained.

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 concise with two sentences: first describes the action, second states the required permission. No redundant or unnecessary content. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it could benefit from clarifying the response format or providing an example. Sibling tools add complexity that is not addressed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'assessmentPid'. The description does not explain its format, expected values, or how to obtain it. The only addition is the permission requirement, which does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'artifacts used as inputs when the assessment report was generated'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like air_list_artifacts (all artifacts) and air_get_assessment_report (the report itself) by specifying the scope.

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 description mentions the required permission 'assessments:read', giving a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like air_list_artifacts or explain when to prefer this tool. The usage context is implied but not guided.

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