search_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two real pieces beyond that: results are capped ("bounded") and excerpts may leak secrets, which is a meaningful handling caution. It still omits whether matching is case-sensitive, whether results are ranked, and what an excerpt looks like.

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?

Five words, front-loaded, with zero filler — but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. The secret-exposure warning is valuable and correctly placed, yet the same sentence leaves out the basic subject of the search.

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, 0% schema coverage, and an unannotated job_id, the description should explain that search is scoped to a job, what limit does, and roughly what comes back. None of that is present, leaving an agent to infer the core calling contract.

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 carries the full burden and largely drops it. "Bounded" gestures at limit but gives no value or meaning; job_id is never mentioned, so its scoping role is undocumented; and query is only implied to be a literal string. Two required parameters are effectively unexplained.

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?

"Bounded literal text search" gives a verb and a search mode (literal, not regex), which is genuinely useful. But the description never says what is searched — the artifact corpus is only inferable from the tool name — and it does not distinguish itself from read_artifact or list_artifacts, which are the obvious siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must guess whether to scan with search_artifacts or fetch a known artifact with read_artifact, and nothing here routes that decision.

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