List Depot CI artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond those annotations: signed URLs are minted one request per artifact, capped at 10 per call, and the tool only returns metadata and links without downloading contents. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 well-structured: the first sentence captures the core operation, the second gives practical use cases, and the third explains the optional signed-URL behavior and its constraints. No sentence is wasted, and the most decision-relevant detail (never downloads contents) is included early.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: what artifacts are for, how to narrow results, how signed URLs behave, and the cap. Pagination is handled by the schema's pageToken description, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds some relational context (e.g., passing jobId/attemptId alongside runId, withDownloadUrl costing extra requests) but does not substantially expand beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('artifacts'), and the exact scope ('a Depot CI run, workflow, job, or attempt'). It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('never downloads or reads artifact contents'), making its purpose unmistakable even among many sibling CI tools.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to find out what a run produced' with concrete examples, and explains when to filter by job or attempt. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like depot_get_ci_logs or depot_get_ci_job_summary, so an agent is left to infer those boundaries, but the guidance is otherwise strong.

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