find_artifact

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds nothing about search behavior, pagination, limit handling, or result format. It does not disclose how pattern matching works or what a response looks like, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral context.

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 with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description omits vital details: the meaning of limit, whether search is case-sensitive / wildcard, the response shape, and any scope-specific behavior. The openWorldHint is not explained, so completeness is insufficient.

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%; the description adds artifact-type examples (business rules, scripts, widgets) but doesn't clarify the undocumented 'limit' parameter or any matching semantics. This is the expected baseline for high schema coverage with minimal added meaning.

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 tool searches for platform artifacts by name, type, or scope, with concrete examples. It implies a cross-type search distinct from the specialized list_* and get_* sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus dedicated artifact-list tools (e.g., list_business_rules, get_business_rule). It lacks any when/not-to-use context or alternative tool references.

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