list_artifact_reductions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination intent ('Page every') and the artifact-to-reduction relationship, but does not disclose cursor mechanics, ordering, or completeness guarantees. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler. 'Page every' front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes meaning. It is as concise as possible without losing clarity.

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 read-only paginated list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description captures the essential scope. However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit sibling routing leaves some gaps, making it minimally adequate rather than fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only indirectly explains artifact_id via 'artifact selected by get_artifact'; limit and cursor are left entirely to the reader. The required limit parameter receives no semantic explanation.

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 names a specific verb ('Page'), a resource ('every reduction that produced an artifact'), and a selection criterion ('selected by get_artifact'). It is clearly distinct from get_artifact and get_reduction, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool. The core purpose is immediately understandable.

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 the main use case: when you have an artifact and want all reductions that produced it. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which sibling (e.g., get_reduction) should be used instead for single-reduction details.

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