Lists evidence artifacts for an Azure image pipeline run and reports which expected image-release artifacts are missing, helping verify release readiness.
List evidence artifacts and report which expected image-release artifacts are missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that missing artifacts are reported, but says nothing about permissions, whether it reads remote storage, how 'expected' artifacts are determined, or pagination/size limits for a potentially large artifact list.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the listing behavior before the diagnostic report behavior. Appropriate length for the scope described.
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 the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the summary of both outputs (artifacts list + missing report) covers the shape. However, with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing on safety profile and precondition details.
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% and the single parameter 'run_id' is undocumented; the description only implicitly ties it to a run. It adds no format, range, or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain a valid run_id) beyond the property name.
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 ('evidence artifacts') plus a second function (report missing expected image-release artifacts). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_image_run_status or list_recent_image_runs, though it never explicitly names them.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_image_run_status or list_recent_image_runs, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'evidence' implying a diagnostic/verification role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.