nexo_artifact_find

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

The description discloses the retrieval ladder steps (exact alias → port/path → fuzzy token → recent), indicating behavioral search order. However, it lacks details on read-only nature, pagination, limits, or error handling. Since annotations are absent, more could be said.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the retrieval ladder and key use case.

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 simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It could optionally mention output format or limits, but it covers the essential purpose and behavior.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the schema by mentioning searchable fields (name, alias, port, path) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 finds artifacts using a specific retrieval ladder and positions itself as the primary retrieval tool. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on natural language queries for built/deployed artifacts.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('when users reference something built/deployed') and gives examples of natural language queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like nexo_artifact_list or nexo_artifact_get.

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