List company artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which adds operational context. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, rate limiting, or any side effects.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits crucial parameter details and usage context, making it less helpful. It is concise but underinformative.

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?

Given the complex input schema (nested path, 7 optional query params) and the existence of an output schema, the description does not provide enough context about filtering, grouping, pagination, or the nature of artifacts. It leaves the agent underinformed.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no information about any of the 7 optional query parameters (q, kind, limit, cursor, groupBy, projectId, groupIssueId) or the required companyId. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.

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 title 'List company artifacts' and description clearly state the tool's verb (list) and resource (company artifacts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the artifact listing scope, but does not elaborate on what constitutes an artifact.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus similar list operations (e.g., listing issues, projects, or other company resources). No context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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