artidrop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that setting include_content to true returns the full HTML content, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or error conditions. It adds some value but is not rich in transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential function and the optional include_content behavior. It could mention the return format or any caveats, but for a basic get operation, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value for include_content by explaining its effect ('also return the full HTML content'), but id is not further elaborated. Overall, it does not significantly go 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 function: 'Get artifact metadata.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like publish and versions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving artifact metadata, and it gives a hint about the include_content parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_site or versions. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, so it scores a 3.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable transparency by warning that content must be passed byte-for-byte and that minor changes can break inline scripts. This goes beyond the schema's basic description and alerts the agent to a critical constraint, though it doesn't discuss auth, reversibility, or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by critical usage guidance. The three sentences are dense but each earns its place: purpose, content-fidelity warning with alternative, and image handling. No filler or redundancy beyond the necessary emphasis on byte-for-byte fidelity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description implicitly indicates the return is a 'shareable URL' but doesn't explicitly state the return format. It covers the main use case, the critical content-fidelity constraint, and a fallback for large content. Missing explicit return type and any auth/precondition notes, but the description is largely complete for a publish action.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description largely reiterates the byte-for-byte instruction from the content param and mentions base64 images (already in schema). It doesn't add new syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 a specific action: 'Publish HTML or Markdown content as a shareable URL.' It identifies the resource (content) and output (URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_site that likely publish entire sites.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the REST endpoint: 'If the content is too large to copy verbatim through the model, use the REST endpoint POST /v1/artifacts instead.' This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition, plus an alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important constraints such as the ZIP must contain index.html at its root and the ~10MB size threshold. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or response format, which are left undisclosed. The added constraints are useful but not a complete safety/profile description.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes value. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides essential limitations and an alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the input format, mandatory content, and a key size limit. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a URL or success indicator) or clarify how it differs from the sibling 'publish' tool, leaving small gaps in context.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context for the key parameter zip_base64 by requiring that the ZIP contain an index.html at its root, which is not present in the schema. This extra constraint helps clarify correct usage beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Publish a multi-file HTML site from a base64-encoded ZIP file.' This specifies the verb (publish), resource (multi-file HTML site), and input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'publish', though the base64 ZIP method is an implicit differentiator.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool and use an alternative: 'For sites larger than ~10MB — or whenever you have the file on disk — prefer the REST API /v1/artifacts/upload endpoint.' This gives clear conditional usage instructions and names a specific alternative, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly disclose safety, side effects, or what the returned history contains (e.g., ordering, metadata).

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about the response format or any behavioral nuances. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent, but it is not severely incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with 'Artifact ID' as the description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('version history of an artifact'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get', 'publish', and 'publish_site' which imply other operations.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools. There are no alternatives mentioned, exclusions, or context about which scenarios call for this tool.

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