List Artifacts by User Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds 'paginated' behavior and session-specific scoping, but does not explain pagination defaults, ordering, or response structure. 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'List paginated artifacts belonging to a specific user's session' efficiently conveys the core operation and scope.

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 read-only list operation with well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. Lack of an output schema and mention of response format adds minor ambiguity, but it is not a significant gap.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that artifacts belong to a user's session and adds no new parameter details beyond the schema.

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 action (List), the resource (artifacts), and the scope (specific user's session), which distinguishes it from general artifact tools like lyzr_list_artifacts. The title and name reinforce the purpose.

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 use when retrieving artifacts for a specific user's session, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling tools such as lyzr_list_artifacts or session history tools. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.

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