List workflow run artifacts

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent; description reinforces with 'never downloaded' and 'never modified' and clarifies pagination bounds ('one bounded page'). This adds confidence-context for agent planning.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only', zero filler. Every clause adds value.

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 simple read-only listing with full schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It covers side effects, pagination, and matching semantics; output schema handles return values.

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?

Input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions; description offers minimal extra parameter-level detail beyond 'bounded page' and reiteration of exactness. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly specifies verb ('read-only return'), resource ('immutable GitHub Actions artifact metadata'), and scope ('for an exact workflow run', 'one bounded page'). Distinguishes from artifact file download and other list tools by emphasizing no download and no modification.

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 context that this is a safe read operation and that name filtering is exact, but never names alternatives among the many sibling tools. An explicit pointer to e.g. gh_list_artifact_files for files or gh_get_artifact for download would earn a 5.

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