artifact_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful framing (retrieval of prior outputs, no regeneration cost) but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing or expired ID, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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; the retrieval purpose and the regeneration-avoidance rationale both earn their words.

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 two-parameter read tool with complete annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Only the missing-ID behavior is arguably left unaddressed, a minor 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 100%, with artifact_id documented as coming from repo_map, search, task_pack, change_impact, edit_scope, or decision_brief, and root explained for worktrees. The description only echoes the 'by ID' idea, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Load a previously generated context artifact by ID') and explains the artifact kinds involved (task packets, repo maps, decisions). It implicitly separates itself from generators like task_pack or repo_map, though it never names them.

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 'so agents can reuse ... without regenerating them' implies the when: call this instead of re-running a generator. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit exclusion or precondition (e.g., what to do when the artifact_id is unknown or stale).

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