kin_artifact_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope context (Dockerfiles, lockfiles, config, assets, symlinks are included) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default limits, or what happens with a large repo.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core scope (tracked files at one change) front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (all tracked files, code and non-code) and when to use it. Only pagination semantics and the default 'current branch head' behavior for omitted source_change_id go unaddressed.

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 only 33% – source_change_id is documented, but limit and offset are not. The description's 'at one semantic change' hints at source_change_id but adds no detail on the limit/offset paging parameters, so the gap is only partially compensated.

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 (List) and resource (repository's tracked files) scoped to one semantic change, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the parser-based sibling by saying 'not what the parsers turned into entities.' An agent can separate this from list_file_entities without opening either schema.

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 a clear usage rule – call it 'for what the repository contains' rather than entity output – which implicitly routes the agent away from list_file_entities. There is no explicit when-not condition or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous for this repo-listing tool.

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