discover_artifacts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Validate' hints that some checking occurs but nothing is said about what validation means, whether the operation is read-only, what errors or side effects exist, or what the result contains.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing, leaving the one sentence too vague to be actionable.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should compensate heavily — instead it supplies one jargon-laden sentence. An agent cannot determine inputs, behavior, or return semantics from it.

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% for three parameters (page, pattern, include_json), and the description never mentions any of them. The agent has no information about what 'pattern' globs, what pagination unit 'page' represents, or what include_json toggles.

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 restates the tool name with added jargon ('bounded artifact spool entries') rather than explaining what is actually discovered or validated. 'Discover and validate' names two verbs but the resource ('bounded artifact spool entries') is opaque, and it gives no signal distinguishing it from the close sibling query_artifact_index.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling discovery tools (query_artifact_index, get_source_evidence, collect_faults). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing information is provided.

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