list_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the return content (names, data types, metadata) and implies read-only behavior. It describes pathspec format clearly. But it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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 short and to the point: four sentences (purpose, return content, guidance to sibling, parameter format). No filler or redundancy. The Args block is a minor repetition but clarifies the parameter. Overall, every sentence 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?

Given the single parameter, output schema existence, and a clear description of return content and parameter format, the description is largely complete for basic usage. However, it omits potential nuances like pagination, filtering options, or performance notes that could be relevant for a list operation.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed explanation of the pathspec parameter, including examples for both task and step pathspecs, and the behavior of using the first task for a step. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type=string.

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') and the resource ('artifacts produced by a task or first task of a step'). It specifies the scope (task or step) and distinguishes from sibling get_artifact (retrieve values) and search_artifacts (search).

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 tells when to use this tool ('List all artifacts') and directs to get_artifact for retrieving values. However, it does not specify when not to use it or contrast with search_artifacts, and lacks prerequisites or context about pagination or limits.

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