List Artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the output is file paths (metadata only), and reading requires a separate call to deerflow_get_artifact. It does not cover failure cases (e.g. no artifacts produced, thread not found).

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up workflow second. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description still helpfully characterizes the result as file paths. Combined with the sibling routing to deerflow_get_artifact, an agent has enough to invoke and chain this 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 coverage is 100% for the single thread_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds nothing about the thread id's format or origin, which is adequate given the high coverage — baseline 3.

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+resource ("List the artifact file paths produced by a DeerFlow thread") and immediately disambiguates from the sibling deerflow_get_artifact by noting the latter reads content rather than listing it. An agent can select this tool correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It provides clear usage context and an explicit follow-up route ("Pass a path to deerflow_get_artifact to read its content"), which establishes the list-then-read workflow. It does not state exclusions or when listing is unnecessary, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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