artidrop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that HTML content is optionally returned, but omits safety profile, error handling (e.g., missing ID behavior), idempotency, or rate limiting details.

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?

Both sentences earn their place: the first defines scope (metadata retrieval), the second explains the critical behavioral toggle (include_content). Zero redundancy in 16 words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (metadata/HTML). Minor gap in not describing error states or null returns, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable usage context by explicitly instructing to 'Set include_content to true' for full HTML retrieval, reinforcing the parameter's practical application.

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 retrieves 'artifact metadata' using the specific verb 'Get' and distinguishes itself from siblings 'publish' (mutation) and 'versions' (listing) through its singular retrieval focus.

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 implicit guidance by explaining the include_content flag's effect, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to prefer this over 'versions' for artifact inspection).

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 fully discloses the critical behavior: content must be passed byte-for-byte without modification, and even one stray character can break scripts. It also explains the implication of large content and the alternative endpoint. This is high transparency for a mutation tool.

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 with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, critical usage rule, fallback for large content, and image handling for markdown. It front-loads the core action and is free of redundancy.

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 complexity (5 params, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavioral constraints, usage alternatives, and parameter context. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially with the schema providing full parameter descriptions.

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 contextual warnings about the content parameter (verbatim, breakage risk) and mentions base64 images for markdown, but these are already partly covered in the schema description. It does not add new parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool publishes HTML or Markdown as a shareable URL. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'publish_site' by focusing on direct content posting, though it does not explicitly differentiate. The verb 'publish' and resource 'content as URL' are specific and clear.

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 use this tool (for verbatim content copying) and when to use the REST endpoint for large content. It also warns against modifying the input. However, it does not compare to other siblings like 'get' or 'versions', which limits full context.

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?

Discloses key behavior: accepts base64-encoded ZIP, requires index.html at root. Mentions size threshold for alternative. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits important details like whether this creates or updates a site, what the return value is, authentication needs, or side effects. Partial but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. First sentence defines purpose, second gives alternative. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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?

Covers purpose, key constraint, and usage alternative. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks return value behavior, error conditions, and whether the tool is idempotent or destructive. For a 3-parameter tool, it is moderately complete but could expand on behavioral 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the constraint that the ZIP must contain an index.html at its root, which is not in the schema. This extra semantic clarity warrants a 4.

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?

Clearly states it publishes a multi-file HTML site from a base64-encoded ZIP. Verb 'publish' and resource 'multi-file HTML site' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get' and 'versions' via the unique ZIP/base64 mechanism; even sibling 'publish' likely refers to a different kind of publish.

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative: for large sites (>10MB) or disk-based files, prefer the REST API /v1/artifacts/upload endpoint. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, addressing both size and convenience.

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, description fails to disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what version metadata is returned.

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?

Extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded; every word earns its place though brevity sacrifices behavioral details.

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?

Adequate for simple single-parameter tool but lacks output specification critical given no output_schema exists.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Artifact ID'), establishing baseline; description adds no parameter context beyond 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?

Clear verb 'List' and resource 'version history' distinctly separates it from sibling 'get' (retrieve) and 'publish' (create), though 'artifact' lacks domain specificity.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., whether to use 'get' instead for current version only) or exclusion criteria.

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