list_artifacts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds context by noting the result is bounded and scoped to one pinned corpus snapshot, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or how the snapshot is pinned.

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 filler. 'Bounded', 'artifact metadata', and 'one pinned corpus snapshot' each add meaningful constraints, and the description avoids restating the tool name or annotations.

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?

Because an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits how cursor-based pagination works and what a 'pinned corpus snapshot' refers to, so an agent may still be uncertain how to page through results or whether any workspace prerequisite applies.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description names neither the required 'limit' parameter nor the optional 'cursor' parameter. The word 'bounded' hints at a limit, but cursor and pagination semantics are entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer them from raw schema constraints alone.

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 a specific resource ('artifact metadata'), and further narrows scope with 'bounded' and 'one pinned corpus snapshot.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_artifact or list_artifact_reductions.

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 alternatives such as get_artifact or preview_artifact. The description implies a use case—listing bounded metadata from a pinned snapshot—but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different artifact-related tool would be more appropriate.

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