pipeline_artifacts

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

No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It explains the listing behavior (shared/ vs step outputs, file sizes) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or mention any side effects. The behavioral info is adequate 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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence intro, followed by two clear paragraphs for the two usage modes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (two modes, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameters, usage modes, and hints for next steps. It does not need to detail the output schema since it is provided separately.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: run_id (required) and step_id (optional, with effects). It details the difference in behavior between providing and omitting step_id, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists artifacts from a pipeline run, with two distinct modes (with/without step_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_status and unwrap/Read, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each mode and suggests using unwrap(ref)/Read() to view contents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any prerequisites, though context is clear.

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