list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: results are returned newest first. However it says nothing about pagination, the default limit, workspace scoping behavior, or permissions – meaningful omissions for a list tool with a limit parameter.

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 with zero filler; the core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the filter capabilities follow. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the ordering plus two filter semantics are covered. But for a four-parameter tool with no annotations, the silence on limit/workspace semantics and pagination leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 compensate. It adds real meaning for two of four parameters (kind as a filter, query as text search over slug or title), but limit and workspace are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 read action (catalog artifacts) on a named resource (artifacts in your workspace) and adds the ordering (newest first), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from write-oriented siblings like create/edit/publish. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of an 'optional kind filter and text query' hints at when to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to siblings such as inspect or status. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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