list_artifact_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: external references are name-only and undownloadable here, and returned training content is untrusted data rather than instructions. It does not disclose pagination defaults or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the external-reference constraint, then the trust warning. No filler.

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 trust and external-reference caveats are useful, but with 4 parameters at 25% coverage and no output schema, the description should explain artifact_id vs uid and the limit/offset paging contract. Those gaps leave an agent guessing at invocation details.

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 only 25% (just uid), leaving artifact_id, limit, and offset undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required at low coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List files of a committed artifact'), which distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'list_files' and from 'list_artifacts'. It does not, however, explicitly name or route against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the artifact-scoped framing and the caveat that external references can't be downloaded by this server, which tells the agent this tool only enumerates local content. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative tool such as download_artifact_file.

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