Collect Artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that the tool copies files out of a sandbox (non-destructive on the source) and explicitly notes that it writes to the server's own state directory and cannot write to the developer's machine. It does not, however, describe the return value or any potential side effects like deleting the sandbox, so it is transparent but not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. Three short sentences cover purpose, usage context, and pattern/limitation details without any redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds distinct value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, when to use it, what parameters to pass (with format), and a key side-effect limitation. It does not describe the output format (though an output schema exists in the context), and it omits edge cases like no-matching-files behavior, so it is not fully complete but is adequate for the 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, and the tool description supplements these with additional explanation of how patterns work ('Workspace-relative shell globs, e.g. ['dist/*.js'], or '**/name' for a recursive search'). This goes beyond the schema, offering practical clarification, so it earns a 4 rather than the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 action ('Copy selected files out of a sandbox before it is destroyed') and specifies the resource (files) and scope (selected, via globs). It also provides a usage context ('USE THIS for build output, test reports, coverage, benchmark results or logs you want to keep or quote') that distinguishes its intent from pure file reading or writing. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool as an alternative, unlike the high-reference example, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('USE THIS for build output, test reports, coverage, benchmark results or logs you want to keep or quote'), which gives clear guidance. It also clarifies the pattern format and a key limitation ('this tool cannot write anywhere on the developer's machine'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it is not fully explicit on all usage boundaries.

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