list_supported_artifacts

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation by describing a read-only listing operation. It goes beyond the annotation by specifying the output scope: artifact types and which fields sync for each, adding useful 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the domain context 'Local sync:' and packs both the action (list) and the key details (artifact types, pull/push support, field sync info). No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description sufficiently explains the scope and expected output. It tells the user exactly what will be listed (supported artifact types) and what detail is provided (fields synced). The openWorldHint is not contradicted and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the clear description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is empty and fully covers the input side, making the description irrelevant to parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource: 'artifact types (tables) that support pull/push to local files'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_artifact and push_artifact which perform the actual sync operations, and from sync_status which reports sync state.

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 'Local sync:' prefix provides a clear domain context, indicating this tool is for discovering supported artifact types for local sync. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the contrast with sync-performing siblings is implied.

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