list_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ordered newest first, and the term 'temporary' implies the artifacts are ephemeral. It doesn't mention side effects, but listing is inherently read-only, and the description aligns with that expectation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond a generic 'list' operation.

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 two sentences plus a one-line Args section. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage scenario follows immediately, and the parameter explanation is concise. 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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, and the parameter is documented. It lacks only minor details like whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, but for a simple list with a limit, this is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly states 'limit: Maximum number of artifacts to return,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple integer type and default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'temporary artifacts', and the ordering 'newest first'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling PDF tools and other operations like discard/export by specifying exactly what it does and the context of workspace artifacts.

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 a clear scenario for when to use this tool: when you've lost track of an artifact ID and want to find it again. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the context is specific enough to guide an agent effectively.

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