mac_list_artifacts

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not mention read-only or destructive nature. It implies a safe listing operation by stating 'returns inventory,' but lacks explicit behavioral context such as whether it modifies the collection or requires special permissions.

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 short sentences that front-load the purpose and list example output categories. No extraneous text. Slight deduction for not using bullet points or structured formatting to enhance scanability.

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 (one parameter, no required output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, scope of artifacts covered, or performance considerations. It describes what it does but not enough for an agent to fully anticipate 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter artifacts_dir, which is described as 'Path to the triage collection root directory.' The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Discover available forensic artifacts in a macOS triage collection' with specific examples like 'logs, databases, plists, and user profiles.' However, it does not contrast with sibling tools, which are more specialized (e.g., mac_plist_read, mac_safari_history), so the distinction is implied but not explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose a more specific sibling tool like mac_plist_read or mac_safari_history. The description is purely declarative.

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