emu_list_artifact_batches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or whether it includes only a subset of batches. However, the word 'list' reasonably implies a read operation and the state qualifiers give some behavioral clarity. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the action, resource, and filter scope without redundancy. It earns its place with 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?

The tool has zero parameters and no output schema, but its complexity is low. The description covers the essential purpose and filter scope. It does not describe the return format or any side effects, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. It is minimally complete for an agent to make an initial call.

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?

The tool accepts no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 since the description has no parameters to document, and the description adds a filtering dimension (pending/delivered) that shapes how the tool behaves without needing schema details.

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 identifies a specific resource (artifact batches) and action (list), and includes state qualifiers (pending/delivered). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a close alternative. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 implies a listing operation with a filter over batch statuses, but it does not provide explicit criteria for when to use this versus related tools like emu_preview_artifacts or emu_list_cdr_records. The absence of alternatives or exclusions means the agent must infer usage from the naming pattern, which is acceptable but not strong.

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