list_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are file names only, not contents, which tells the agent what the return set looks like. It stops short of describing path format or recursion/ordering behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability and routing first, exclusion second. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: scope, glob semantics, and the returned granularity. A brief note on output path format or default ordering would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 50% — the repo param is documented in the schema (including a pointer to list_repos), while pattern has no schema description. The description compensates with a concrete glob example that clarifies pattern syntax and path shape, which is real added value.

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 (list) and resource (artifact files in a repo) with scope (matching a glob pattern) plus a concrete example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_artifacts, so an agent can pick it without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (search_artifacts) and the exact condition that selects it: pattern-based filename listing vs. content search. The 'file names only' framing makes the boundary unambiguous.

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