lc_list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'one bounded page' but does not explain pagination mechanics (e.g., cursor vs offset). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or required permissions. The term 'bounded page' is ambiguous.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It effectively uses front-loading by stating the action first. While brief, it could be expanded without becoming verbose, but it is efficient for a simple listing tool.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure, artifact types, or pagination details. The tool has many siblings and moderate complexity, requiring more contextual information for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It maps 'org' to oid, 'sensor' to sensor_id, 'time window' to start/end, and 'cursor' to cursor, which adds value. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter and does not clarify if filters are combined or exclusive. The description only partially addresses the 6 parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'artifacts', and mentions 'one bounded page' indicating pagination. It lists possible filters (org, sensor, time window, or cursor), which helps clarify scope. However, it does not distinguish from the many sibling list tools or clarify what artifacts are exactly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lc_list_case_artifacts, lc_list_detections). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints. The description is generic and does not help an agent decide between tools.

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