artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does add a concrete trait: 'Times out after 90s.' It also constrains usage to active or completed sessions. However, it does not disclose timeout failure behavior, authentication needs, or whether results are partial, so transparency remains moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the timeout warning is a valuable second sentence. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool with 17 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not describe the shape of the returned artifact list, how a session is identified among the many selectors, or the effect of choosing daemon vs cloud provider. The timeout is mentioned but not the failure mode, leaving an agent to guess about invocation and output.

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?

All 17 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and does not link 'session' to a specific field, but the schema already documents each selector.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('daemon or cloud provider artifacts') with a session scope, which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not define what counts as an artifact or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like logs or trace, but the 'daemon or cloud provider' qualifier provides some separation.

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 indicates the tool applies to 'active or completed session' and warns about a 90s timeout, which gives some usage context. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer when to choose this over logs, trace, or snapshot.

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