List task run artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context on what artifact types come back and the dbt-v2 variant set, but says nothing about pagination, sorting, empty results, or auth behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the enumeration purpose, with no filler. The second sentence about dbt v2 is a slight tangent but still relevant to interpreting results.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple parameterized list. The description covers what the tool returns and its variant behavior, leaving only minor gaps like pagination.

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 100%, so task_run_id, pipeline_run_id, and the account header are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('artifacts linked to a task run'), then enumerates concrete artifact examples (manifest.json, run_results.json, catalog.json). An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from the sibling download_task_run_artifact without opening either schema.

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?

Timing is implied by the name and the artifact listing, but the description never states when to use this versus download_task_run_artifact or when artifacts are unavailable. Usage is inferable but no explicit alternative or exclusion is named.

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