ci_build_actions_artifacts_get_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), not what the relationship payload contains. Duplicating the URL adds no behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but the same endpoint string is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than concise information. No front-loaded statement of what the call returns.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it provides none — an agent cannot tell what the artifacts relationship response looks like or whether pagination applies. Only the schema's parameter documentation saves it from a 1.

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 100% — both id and limit are documented in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the id format or pagination semantics.

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 is just the raw endpoint path repeated twice, which restates the tool name rather than explaining purpose. An agent can infer it fetches the artifacts relationship of a CI build action, but nothing is stated in prose and there is no differentiation from the many sibling get_to_many_relationship tools.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus alternatives such as ci_build_actions_artifacts_get_to_many_related or ci_artifacts_get_instance. The agent must infer usage purely from the path and tool name.

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