get_artifact_reads

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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, time windows for 'recently', ordering, or pagination behavior. For a list tool, this is a notable gap, especially without annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 optional filter parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify return structure, ordering, or time-based definition of 'recently read'. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the context of 'recently read' and 'feedback and ranking', which does not directly explain parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: listing recently read durable memory artifacts. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory_search or get_memory, which may also return memory-related data.

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 implies usage (for feedback and ranking of recently read artifacts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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