list_project_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return structure (list with path and size), error behavior (404), and the effect of the recursive parameter. However, it omits potential rate limits or auth requirements, which are minor for a list operation.

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 well-structured: starts with a clear purpose, then explains parameters, followed by usage exclusions, and finally return/error info. Every sentence serves a specific function with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return structure and error cases. It explains the recursive behavior and path scoping, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: examples for path ('docs/features/active', omit for root), and clarifies recursive default and behavior. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 explicitly states it 'Lists artifact files' with optional subfolder scoping and recursive traversal. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like read_project_artifacts and get_project_map.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on when not to use this tool: 'Do NOT use to read file content — call read_project_artifacts instead. Do NOT use to browse source code — call get_project_map for the src/ tree.' This clearly guides the agent.

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