Prepare content for transfer to another agent or a human reviewer.
`target_modes` accepts either a JSON list or an actual list of MIME types.
The result includes expiring artifact URLs, SHA-256 hashes, a manifest,
and a downloadable ZIP package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| filename | No | artifact.md | |
| ttl_hours | No | ||
| media_type | No | text/markdown | |
| target_modes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the result includes expiring artifact URLs, SHA-256 hashes, a manifest, and a ZIP package. However, it doesn't mention whether content persists, any authentication constraints, side effects, or limits such as TTL ranges.
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 compact and front-loaded. The purpose statement leads, the parameter clarification is relevant and concise, and the output summary is dense with useful detail. There is 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 description covers the core purpose and key outputs, and an output schema exists to document return shape. However, it omits important behavioral and parameter context such as content formatting, TTL semantics, media_type handling, and usage boundaries. Given five parameters and zero parameter schema descriptions, this is only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies target_modes, explaining that it accepts a JSON list or an actual list of MIME types. The other four parameters — content, filename, ttl_hours, and media_type — receive no explanation beyond schema defaults.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Prepare content for transfer to another agent or a human reviewer.' It also distinguishes itself via specific outputs (expiring URLs, hashes, manifest, ZIP), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like compile_handoff and inspect_handoff even though they aren't named.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use prepare_artifact versus compile_handoff or inspect_handoff. The phrase 'for transfer' implies a use case, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
compile_handoff and prepare_artifact both produce transferable packages, which could cause confusion about which to use for a given handoff. inspect_handoff is clearly distinct, and tool descriptions help clarify the intended lifecycle stages, but the boundary between compiling and preparing remains somewhat fuzzy.
compile_handoff and inspect_handoff follow a consistent verb_handoff pattern, but prepare_artifact breaks the pattern by changing the object and verb style. Overall the naming is readable and predictable despite the one deviation.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused artifact handoff server, covering compilation, inspection, and preparation without unnecessary bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct lifecycle stage.
The set covers the core handoff workflow: compile, inspect, and prepare artifacts for transfer. There is no explicit delivery or acceptance tool, but inspect_handoff returns an acceptance decision, so the lifecycle is reasonably complete with only minor gaps.