list_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by introducing the 'bounded' concept (suggesting pagination) and the 'pinned corpus snapshot' scope, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose and scope without padding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is moderately complete. It states the tool's purpose and scope but lacks guidance on when to use it and how parameters affect the result. For a simple list tool with two parameters, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in usage and parameter detail.

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, but it does not mention 'limit' or 'cursor' explicitly. The schema itself provides type constraints (limit integer 1-1000, cursor string/null) and a default, but 'bounded' only vaguely hints at the limit parameter. The description adds minimal parameter value.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'artifact metadata' from 'one pinned corpus snapshot,' which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_artifact (full artifact) and list_runs (runs), though 'bounded' could be more explicit. Overall, it is specific and meaningful.

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 a use case—retrieving artifact metadata from a pinned snapshot—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools like get_artifact or list_runs are not referenced, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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