List pipeline artifacts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safe read-only nature, and the description adds the context of 'history' implying a retrospective list. It does not contradict the annotation, but it offers limited additional behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple listing purpose, the description should at least hint at what constitutes an artifact or how results are scoped/filtered. It does not address these details, leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone. The description references 'project-level' and 'pipeline' but does not clarify the distinction between project_id and project_name or the requirement of pipeline_id.

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 identifies a list operation for pipeline artifact history at the project level, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipeline_runs and read_pipeline_run_logs. However, the phrase 'project-level' slightly conflicts with the schema requiring pipeline_id, creating minor ambiguity about the exact 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pipeline_runs or read_pipeline_run_logs. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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