artifacts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists artifacts and does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or read-only nature, which are important traits for an API tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, comprising a single sentence with a clear verb and object. The prefix '[XcodeCloud/BuildArtifacts]' is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly from clarity.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context such as param behavior, defaults, or what artifacts are included. With no annotations and a brief description, the tool is not fully self-contained for correct invocation, especially regarding the 'limit' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only implicitly suggests a build ID via 'for a build' but does not address the 'limit' parameter or provide any default/type details, offering minimal added value over the schema.

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 "List artifacts for a build" clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to artifacts within a build, while the naming and context make it unambiguous.

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 phrase "for a build" provides clear context that this tool is used when you need artifacts tied to a specific build. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no direct artifact sibling exists, so the guidance is acceptable.

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