list_artifact_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a relevant caveat that the upstream spec does not document pagination parameters, which helps agents understand potential limitations. However, it doesn't clarify the behavior for large result sets or whether all entries are returned in one response.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a meaningful caveat about pagination. While very brief, it is efficient and not padded.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate but sparse. It lacks information about error conditions, how artifact_id relates to other tools, or what constitutes an artifact entry. The pagination note is the only extra contextual detail beyond name and schema.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters. It does not explain artifact_id at all, though the parameter name and uuid format provide some inference. The description also doesn't explicitly state that artifact_id identifies the parent artifact whose entries are listed.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('artifact entities'), making the basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_global_artifacts, but the naming 'artifact_entries' vs 'global_artifacts' hints at a distinct scope. Overall, the purpose is understandable without opening the schema.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not-to use it, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools. The only additional note is about pagination parameters, which is a behavioral caveat rather than usage guidance.

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