nexo_artifact_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step search strategy (exact alias, port/path, fuzzy token, recent) and mentions natural language handling. This provides useful behavioral insight beyond a simple 'find' statement, though output format is not described.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and provides essential context (retrieval ladder, primary usage, natural language examples) efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the search mechanism and usage context well. It lacks output format details, but the tool's purpose is clear and the search strategy is explained.

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 the schema fully describes the parameters. The tool description adds no new information about parameters; it only echoes the query description. For kind and state, no extra context is given, so no additional value 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's purpose: 'Find artifacts using the retrieval ladder: exact alias → port/path → fuzzy token → recent.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('artifacts'), and distinguishes itself as the 'PRIMARY retrieval tool' for when users reference something built/deployed. This differentiates it from sibling tools like nexo_artifact_list.

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 positions the tool as the primary retrieval tool for user references to built/deployed items and mentions handling natural language queries. It implies when to use it (for references) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, though the context is clear among siblings.

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