list_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead adds behavior annotations don't carry: external references are never fetched, and returned training content is untrusted data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection warning is genuinely useful disclosure, though return shape and pagination limits remain unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the sibling boundary, then the trust caveat. No filler, nothing repeated from the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers what is returned (artifacts, aliases, metadata, lineage) plus how file listing differs and the untrusted-content caveat. The paging parameters and a default behavior note would round it out, but it is adequate for invocation.

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 33% — uid is documented in the schema, but limit and offset have no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about these parameters (e.g. offset-based paging behavior), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though their semantics are conventional.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus a precise resource scope: committed produced/used artifacts, aliases, metadata and lineage. It explicitly demarcates itself from the sibling list_artifact_files, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (list_artifact_files) and the condition that selects it (file lists are separately paginated there), which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of stating when the tool should be preferred over get_run or list_runs for artifact inspection, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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