inspect_artifacts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without returning file contents', which is a key behavioral detail for safety and privacy. It also implies read-only inspection ('Inspect local artifact sizes') and scope ('local'), though it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or permission requirements.

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 starts with the action and lists specific outputs, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is inspected and highlights the non-content-returning behavior. It does not specify return format, but the listed outputs ('sizes, extension totals, largest files, dependency manifest names') give a reasonable picture. The sibling relationship is not addressed, but the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'Local project directory; no URLs'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming the local nature, so the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 states a clear action ('Inspect') and specific resource ('local artifact sizes, extension totals, largest files, and dependency manifest names'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool inspect_manifest by covering broader artifact metrics rather than just manifests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_manifest. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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