read_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool reads 'full content,' which is essentially a restatement of its purpose. It does not mention error handling, access requirements, rate limits, or the return format, leaving the agent with limited insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that is immediately understandable and free of extraneous words. It earns its place by conveying the essential action and scope.

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 read tool with well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core function and includes 'full content' to clarify the return. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by this clarity, though it does not address edge cases like missing artifacts or errors.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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 the specific verb 'read' with a clear resource ('full content of a specific artifact file from a conversation'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_artifacts (which lists) and search_artifacts (which searches).

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 (read full content of a specific artifact) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use list_artifacts to find filenames first' or 'use search_artifacts to locate artifacts.'

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