Get Artifact Digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that reads are confined to a 受控导出根 (controlled export root), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: purpose, scope, and return content come before the rationale clause. Efficient, though it is terse enough that a little more on path handling would not have been wasted space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile comes from annotations. What remains thin is the input contract — how artifact_path is interpreted and what happens on a path outside the export root — which for a 1-param, 0%-coverage schema leaves a gap.

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% on the single artifact_path parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 受控导出根内 implies the path is resolved inside an allowed export root, adding a real constraint, but it omits the expected path form (absolute vs relative, extension expectations), so it does not fully document the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and the exact return content (SHA-256 和字节数), plus the constrained scope (受控导出根内发布工件). This is far more specific than a name restatement, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool by name.

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 phrase 用于阶段间完整性核验 gives a clear use context (inter-stage integrity verification), which is genuinely more than nothing. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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