artifact

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention side effects, permissions, or what 'manage' entails. The only hint is 'asynchronous jobs,' which is insufficient to understand the tool's behaviors or limitations.

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 one short sentence, so it is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than cleanly concise. It omits critical information that the tool's action-dispatch pattern requires. This is not a case of concise adequacy but of insufficient substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (action dispatch, async jobs, output schema) and lack of annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not enumerate valid actions, explain the request schema, or describe return behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has a required 'action' string and an optional 'request' object, but both lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter details, leaving the meaning of 'action' and the structure of 'request' entirely unknown. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 the generic verb 'manage' and names two resources: evidence artifacts and asynchronous jobs. It vaguely suggests scope but does not specify the operations (create, update, delete, etc.) nor does it clearly differentiate from sibling tools like object_get or catalog. 'Bounded' adds slight context but remains ambiguous.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. It only implies a domain (artifacts and jobs) without offering decision criteria.

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