list_artifacts

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the call is a read except that it may create the workspace, and results come back newest-first. It also enumerates the returned record shape (including the nested source and tools fields) even though no output schema is declared.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and examples, then the return shape, then the id/call-site note and side-effect caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical artifact examples and field enumeration are slightly listy yet justified given the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return structure, ordering, filtering semantics, and the read-with-workspace-creation caveat — everything an agent needs to call and interpret this tool. Nothing material is left implicit.

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% — both kind (with example values) and workspace (name not id, created if missing, defaults to 'default') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the artifacts recorded in a workspace') and immediately scopes it with concrete examples of what an artifact is (decompiled sources, decoded APK project, rebuilt APK, secret-scan and Frida trace results). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files, list_workspaces, and list_findings.

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 link 'Artifact ids are what create_finding evidence cites' tells the agent when this listing matters as a precursor to create_finding, and the kind filter is framed as optional. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_files or list_workspaces for the agent deciding between listing tools.

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