artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit by adding sandbox scope ('read-only within this service's job directory') and the 32KB page cap, which the annotations do not convey.

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 compact sentence with both capabilities and both constraints front-loaded; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what list vs read returns and how to continue past a 32KB page. It gives the page cap but not the pagination or return-shape behavior, and leaves path resolution ambiguous for a 5-parameter tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'offset' is a byte offset and implies the list/read split matching the action enum, but says nothing about jobId, path (a 4096-char string — is it relative?), or the limit parameter's relationship to the 32KB cap.

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 two concrete operations in one clause: listing job artifacts and reading a file at a byte offset, plus the scope ('only this service's job directory'). This is a specific verb+resource, though it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling 'artifact' (singular).

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 pair 'list or read by byte offset' implies which action to pick for which goal, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of any alternative tool for retrieval. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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