artifact_read

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

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the return includes sha256, that sha256 is the if_match token for artifact_write/artifact_delete, and that if_match is only present when the KB sets allow_artifact_write. This is exactly the kind of contextual detail annotations can't convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return semantics. No filler. Slightly dense in the enumeration but every item earns its place by delimiting the valid path 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does partially: it names content and sha256. But it omits the encoding parameter's behavior entirely and doesn't describe what 'content' looks like under base64 encoding. Adequate but with a real gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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% for 2 parameters (path, encoding). The description implies path semantics through the enumerated artifact locations, which adds some value, but encoding (text vs base64) is completely unexplained in both schema and description despite having an enum. This is a clear gap the description should have filled.

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 states a specific verb (Reads) and resource (a KB-root artifact) and enumerates the exact path space (skills/, agents/, hooks/, mcp/, instructions.md, templates/<slug>.md, paths.yaml, glossary.yaml). This is very concrete and distinguishes it from sibling reads like asset_read or concept_read. It loses a point because it doesn't explicitly frame itself against artifact_write/artifact_delete beyond the if_match mention.

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?

Usage is implied: you read to obtain content and the if_match token needed for artifact_write/artifact_delete. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus asset_read/concept_read, and no articulation of when-not-to-use. The link to write/delete is helpful but only one-directional.

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