artifact.list_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it only reads and does not modify any state. It also does not disclose any side effects, pagination behavior, or ordering semantics.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain what the returned list contains, how to interpret the items, or how 'pending' is defined. Parameters are undocumented, making the tool harder to use correctly. The description is too sparse for a tool with two optional parameters and no structured output.

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%, and the description does not mention either 'limit' or 'older_than_hours'. Since the description is the only source of parameter meaning and it is silent, the agent has no basis for understanding how these optional parameters affect the results.

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 action ('Lists'), the resource ('pending artifacts'), and the specific filtering context ('awaiting remote sync confirmation'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like artifact.get and artifact.confirm_remote_sync by focusing on the pending/unsynced state.

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 the tool is for viewing artifacts that have not yet been confirmed for remote sync, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. Given sibling tools like artifact.confirm_remote_sync, a note about using this before confirming would improve the score.

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