get_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'No extra I/O' and 'Read-only,' but no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth, rate limits). With annotations present, the description's added value is limited.

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 concise (~80 words), well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: lists artifact types, states no extra I/O, provides usage hint, declares read-only, and specifies return format. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives the return structure (JSON with artifacts array and total). It explains data source (existing index) and limitations (no extra I/O). For a read-only, simple-parameter tool, this is complete.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the category enum but does not add new meaning for query or limit. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly supplement 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 it surfaces non-code knowledge (DB schemas, API specs, infra, CI, config) from the index, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on code analysis (e.g., get_control_flow, get_complexity_report). It uses specific verb 'surface' and enumerates resource categories.

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 explicitly states 'Use to discover infrastructure and config artifacts without reading files,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternative tools, which prevents a 5.

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