list_artifacts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does note the return payload ('JSON with uri per artifact'), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements that an agent calling a list tool would want.

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 compact clauses, filter capability front-loaded right after the verb, and no filler. Efficient and readable.

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 existing output schema covers return structure, so the description need not explain it. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no indication of result size or defaults, the definition leaves an agent short of what it needs to call this reliably.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters. It names both (context, type) but adds no format, allowed values, or matching semantics, leaving the agent unable to supply a meaningful value.

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 artifacts') plus the capability to filter by context/type, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It lacks any differentiation from the many file/directory sibling tools, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 says it filters by context/type but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_directory or search_files, nor any preconditions. Usage is only faintly implied by the filter mention.

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