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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool is read-only ('Read ... without returning stored bytes'), works with immutable version histories, and explicitly excludes returning file bytes. This aligns perfectly with the annotations and provides the agent with a transparent understanding of boundaries.

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, efficiently packing the core purpose, scope, and key constraint ('without returning stored bytes'). Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 has only 2 required UUID parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides complete context. It specifies the exact information returned (version history, provenance, attribution, digests, review states) and the key exclusion (no bytes). An agent can confidently decide when to invoke this tool versus download-oriented or listing tools. No gaps are apparent.

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%, meaning neither parameter is described in the schema. The description compensates by clarifying that project_id and artifact_id identify the artifact whose metadata is returned. However, it could be more explicit about the roles of each parameter (e.g., 'artifact_id' might be a version ID vs. an artifact identifier). Adding a brief note on expected input format or scope would improve this.

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 as 'one artifact's immutable version history, provenance, attribution, digests, and review states.' It also explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('without returning stored bytes'), which distinguishes it from download-focused tools like prepare_artifact_download. This provides a complete, unambiguous purpose that stands out among siblings.

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 appropriate usage scenarios: when metadata about an artifact is needed without downloading its content. It contrasts with tools like prepare_artifact_download (which returns bytes) and list_artifacts (which lists multiple artifacts). However, it does not explicitly exclude usage in cases where the artifact ID is unknown, nor does it suggest alternatives like list_artifacts for discovery. Slight improvement needed for explicit exclusions.

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