find_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds that it searches artifacts but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or sorting. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and key criteria. No unnecessary words or repetitions. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (search with 4 params, no output schema), the description covers core functionality. It lists example artifact types. However, it omits guidance on the 'limit' parameter and return format. Still complete enough for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description repeats those three (name, type, scope) without adding new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not exceed schema 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?

Description clearly states the action 'Search' and the resource 'platform artifacts' with criteria by name, type, or scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_cmdb_ci or search_knowledge by focusing on platform artifacts such as business rules and scripts.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to find artifacts by name, type, or scope. It provides search criteria but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the criteria are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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