Get artifact history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read profile. The description adds behavioral value by mentioning the 'immutable' nature of the history and explicitly stating that stored bytes are not returned, which prevents misuse as a download 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and behavior, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does by listing the types of information returned (immutable version history, provenance, attribution, digests, review states). It also notes the absence of stored bytes, which completes the data scope. However, it lacks details like pagination or ordering, which is a minor gap for a history endpoint.

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%, and the description does not clarify how project_id and artifact_id relate or what each parameter selects. The names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage by explaining parameter roles or relationships.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('one artifact's immutable version history, provenance, attribution, digests, and review states'). It also distinguishes itself by stating it does not return stored bytes, which sets it apart from sibling tools like prepare_artifact_download.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by explicitly excluding stored bytes, implying it is for metadata/history retrieval rather than content download. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing a direct comparison.

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