Load session or user artifacts by filename or file ID, optionally versioned. Uses human-readable names to make artifact retrieval straightforward.
ADK-aligned artifact helper: list session/user: artifacts or load by filename/file_id (optional version). Prefer for human-readable names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can list or load artifacts and that version is optional, but it does not mention return shape, error behavior, side effects, permissions, or what 'load' returns to the agent.
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 short and front-loads the main action, but the phrasing 'list session/user: artifacts' is awkwardly structured. 'ADK-aligned artifact helper' adds jargon without much concrete value, and the compressed style sacrifices clarity.
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?
The tool has three parameters, an undocumented nested 'arguments' object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate—but it does not. An agent would not know how to construct a successful invocation, what inputs are required, or what the response will look like.
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 0%, and the description does not map 'filename/file_id', 'session/user', or 'optional version' to the actual parameters (agent_id, arguments, session_id). The 'arguments' object is opaque, and the agent cannot infer where to place the filename or file_id from the description alone.
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 uses specific verbs ('list', 'load') and identifies the resource ('artifacts'), including scope ('session/user') and optional versioning. It is clear enough to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling file/artifact tools such as yaaif_file_load_context or yaaif_session_files_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 phrase 'Prefer for human-readable names' gives a weak usage hint, implying the tool is best when working with named artifacts. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it names no alternatives among the many closely related file-tool siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.