List workflow artifact files

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it downloads to temporary server state, never extracts, and rejects traversal, absolute paths, duplicates, symlinks, etc. This adds substantial safety context that the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) do not cover.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists safety constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including pagination, return of normalized paths and sizes, and the read-only nature. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a meaningful schema description (e.g., artifact_id as 'Exact workflow artifact identifier'). The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: to inspect a specific GitHub Actions artifact ZIP and return a bounded page of normalized file paths and sizes. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like gh_get_artifact and gh_read_artifact_file by focusing on listing file metadata without extraction.

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 usage context by specifying it is for reading artifact contents and never modifies GitHub. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the bounded page and read-only nature make it clear this is for listing file information. The sibling context provides additional cues.

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