task_artifacts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. The word "metadata" implies contents are not returned and that fetch_artifact handles the actual bytes, but there is no statement about permissions, ordering, pagination, or what happens when a task has no artifacts.

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?

A single four-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what is listed and for which task. It omits return shape hints, ordering, and its relationship to fetch_artifact, which are the main gaps an agent would face.

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 reported at 100%, so the schema is expected to carry parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about task_id (e.g., whether it is required or scopes results), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List task artifact metadata." An agent can tell it produces a listing of metadata for a task's artifacts rather than artifact contents or task status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_artifact, which is the tool most likely to be confused with it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings like fetch_artifact, task_status, and task_logs present, the description never states which one to pick or under what condition, leaving the agent to infer that this is the metadata-listing variant.

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