artifact_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'compact rows' hints at the output format. However, it does not disclose ordering, filtering details, or whether artifacts are grouped in any way beyond 'active sprint'. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 that states the action, target, and output format with zero filler words. It earns its place entirely and is easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for the core behavior: listing active sprint artifacts in a compact format. It could be enhanced by specifying what each row contains, but it is not incomplete for typical usage.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description correctly implies that no user input 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 'List active sprint artifacts as compact rows' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active sprint artifacts') and notes output format ('compact rows'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling artifact_add/artifact_get/artifact_update and other list tools by focusing on sprint-specific artifacts.

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 the tool (when you need to see active sprint artifacts) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention that other tools might be preferred for non-sprint or archived artifacts. This is adequate but not explicit.

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