list_artifact_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context that results are metadata-only and concern in-memory proposals. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler wording. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 operation, the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema leaves exact metadata fields unspecified, but 'metadata' plus 'without returning their contents' sets a reasonable expectation for the result.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input contract. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed for a no-parameter tool.

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 and resource: 'List metadata for in-memory artifact proposals' and explicitly excludes returning contents, which clearly separates it from content-returning siblings like preview_artifact. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 'without returning their contents' implies this tool is for metadata-only needs and that another tool should be used when contents are required, but no sibling or explicit when-to-use condition is named. Usage guidance is present only implicitly.

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