檢視交付檔案

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the scoping constraint ('directly inside exports'); it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when exports is empty, which would have been useful added 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and the artifact types come first, and the scope qualifier is appended rather than buried.

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 listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. Missing only minor operational detail such as ordering or whether nested subfolders are included.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool; the description's enumeration of artifact types is a reasonable substitute for input 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('artifacts'), then concretizes it as 'Office documents, PDFs, images and text deliverables directly inside exports.' The 'directly inside exports' scope implicitly separates it from the more general sibling list_directory, though no sibling is named outright.

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 phrase 'directly inside exports' implies the listing scope and suggests non-recursive traversal, which is some usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over list_directory, get_artifact_path, or read_text, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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