studio_list_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by saying it rechecks current SHA-256 and size and scopes to completed-action artifacts, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether rechecking updates stored metadata, or what happens if artifacts are missing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It leads with the primary action ('List') and appends the verification behavior efficiently.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations, an undocumented required job_id, and no usage guidance, the description leaves important context missing for correct invocation.

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 only required parameter is job_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions job_id or explains that the listed artifacts are scoped to that job, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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: it lists completed-action artifacts and rechecks their SHA-256 and size. This is clear enough to distinguish from status/job-planning siblings by the artifact-focused purpose, but it does not explicitly name or compare against alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as studio_inspect_job or studio_status. The phrase 'completed-action artifacts' implies a post-completion verification use case, but the description gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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