goodmemory_read_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as 'Diagnostic' but does not confirm read-only behavior, side effects, authorization needs, or constraints. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that may be called diagnostically.

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 two short sentences, efficiently front-loading the label and usage. It contains no fluff, but the brevity leads to gaps in other areas like parameter and behavioral info.

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 no output schema, 3 parameters (one undocumented), and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the role of includeRuntime, the structure of return data, or any preconditions. A tool with this complexity should provide more context.

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?

The description adds no context about the parameters (cwd, sessionId, includeRuntime). Schema coverage is 67% (includeRuntime missing description), and the description does not compensate by explaining how these parameters affect the projection. The agent must rely solely on the schema's partial descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as diagnostic and specifies it retrieves the 'accepted host-adapter artifact projection' for the workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different data types (contexts, records, etc.).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need the accepted host-adapter artifact projection'), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, though the specificity implies differentiation.

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