List cached raw scalar artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details beyond annotations: 'never reads Cascade directly,' explains response format (JSON text with structuredContent authority and _cache metadata for oversized responses). This enhances transparency.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses multiple sentences but each adds meaningful information. However, it could be more structured by separating usage guidelines from behavioral notes.

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 8 parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides some behavioral context (response handling, cursor? not mentioned) but lacks details on return structure beyond 'JSON Pointer and offset provenance.' Pagination and parameter usage are not explained, making it incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 only 13% (only asset_handle described). The description does not explain other parameters like artifact_kind, pointer_prefix, cursor, limit, etc. It lists artifact types but doesn't map them to parameters, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance on how to filter or paginate.

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 tool enumerates derived link/path-like artifacts from cached raw string scalar facts, listing specific types like http_url, site_link, href, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like cascade_asset_list_facts by focusing on scalar artifacts rather than general facts.

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 says 'Use after cascade_read,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction is sufficient given the sibling context.

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