List artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's trailing 'Read operation.' adds nothing. The genuinely useful addition is that deleted files are excluded from results, a filtering behavior not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Efficient two-sentence body with the core action front-loaded and modifiers listed compactly. The standalone 'Read operation.' line is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, a small amount of waste.

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 paginated read-only list tool with a fully described schema and rich annotations, the description covers the necessary ground; the deleted-file exclusion and pagination mention round it out. No output schema exists, but return shape for a list tool is largely implied by the cursor/page_size parameters.

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 all seven parameters (including the alias support for agent_id and the opaque cursor semantics) are already documented. The description merely restates the same capabilities at a higher level and adds no syntax, format, or default details 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List artifacts (files) produced by an agent'), and clarifies the ambiguous term 'artifacts' as files. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings like list_brain_files or download_artifact_file, leaving the agent to infer scope from schema and annotations.

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 enumerates capabilities (scope by session, search, sort, paginate) which implies usage, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any preconditions. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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