List Deployed Runtime Artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that the 'top' parameter limits the number of results, contradicting the word 'all'. It also does not mention any ordering, filtering, or return field details beyond status.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core function without waste.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description misses the limiting behavior of 'top' and provides no output schema or return field details. It mentions status but not other artifact attributes, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 schema has a single optional 'top' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. Since the description does not compensate for the low coverage, it scores a 2.

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 a specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'deployed runtime artifacts' with their status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deployed_artifact_status, which targets a single artifact's status.

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 implies this is for retrieving a broad list of all deployed artifacts with statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since it provides clear context without explicit guidance, it earns a 3.

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