List Artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that pagination and filters are optional, implying a broad list, but does not disclose behavior like ordering, default scope, or anything beyond the schema.

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 sentence that conveys the essential action and optional parameters with no unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with 5 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and safe-read annotations. However, the description does not mention the existence of a more specific sibling (list_artifacts_by_session) or clarify the general-purpose nature, leaving a small but clear gap in context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters as 'pagination and filters' which adds minimal conceptual clustering, but does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists artifacts, which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions optional pagination and filters, but does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'lyzr_list_artifacts_by_session', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 lyzr_list_artifacts_by_session or other list tools. The description does not state any exclusions or preferred use cases.

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