list_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it spells out the exact two-step download flow, required headers per step, and the specific failure modes (401 on step 1 for wrong auth, 400 on step 2 for any extra header, 401 by design for browser_only_url). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the operational detail; every part is relevant. Slight redundancy remains — the step-1 header rule is stated in the step-1 sentence and repeated in the Pitfalls sentence — which keeps it from a 5.

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 output schema, the description must explain the return shape, and it does: download_path is documented, browser_only_url is explained and gated, and the download contract is fully specified. An agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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% for the single task_id parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning; the description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter itself. The note that 'download_path is step 1's path' clarifies an output field, not the input. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List artifacts attached to a task.' An agent can distinguish this from the singular get_artifact sibling by the 'list' verb, though the description never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and by the embedded download protocol, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_artifact guidance or stated prerequisite (e.g., that the task must exist). The 'must not fetch browser_only_url' constraint is a useful exclusion, though it concerns a downstream action rather than the listing call itself.

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