artifact_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a list, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or details about the 'compact rows' format. More behavioral context is needed.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is well front-loaded.

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 complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is too minimal. It fails to clarify what 'compact rows' means, the scope of 'active', and how this tool differs from similar list or search tools. More context is required for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional meaning beyond the schema is needed.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'active sprint artifacts', and the format 'compact rows'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like artifact_add, artifact_get, and artifact_update which are for other operations.

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 when to use this tool (when needing a list of active sprint artifacts), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search or overview for different listing needs.

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