search_artifacts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('does not load artifact data'), performance considerations, and scoping capability. Lacks details on authorization or rate limits, but these are typical for a read-only search tool.

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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by brief explanation and a note about performance, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. Covers all parameters and usage context adequately. Could mention that it returns matching artifacts, but the output schema likely handles that. Sibling differentiation is partially addressed.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter's meaning, defaults, and usage (e.g., 'last_n_runs: Number of recent runs to scan (default 5)', 'step_name: Only search within this step (e.g. train)'). This adds significant value 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 'Search for a named artifact across recent runs of a flow', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_artifact (does not load data) and implicitly from list_artifacts.

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?

Explicitly advises to use get_artifact when data is needed, and suggests using step_name for large flows to improve performance. Could also mention list_artifacts for listing all artifacts, but the provided guidance is clear and actionable.

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