list_job_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It wisely uses 'List' to indicate a read-only operation and explicitly states what it returns (file names, UUIDs, sizes). However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists return values, and the third defines artifacts. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with three straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what artifacts are and what the tool returns. Minor gaps like pagination or large-result behavior are not addressed, but they are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying aliases or relationships between parameters.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('build artifacts'), and scopes it to a CI/CD job. It also specifies the return fields (names, UUIDs, sizes), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_job or list_pipeline_jobs.

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 usage (when you need artifact metadata for a job) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools do not overlap in function, so ambiguity is low, but explicit guidance is missing.

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