artifact_read_chunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ownership ('owner-bound') and size-limiting ('bounded') context beyond annotations, but never states what happens past the bounds, whether reads are streaming, or any auth/error behavior. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, alternative named second, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing routing or scope information.

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, but for a 4-param, 0%-coverage read tool the description leaves the offset/length chunking contract unexplained, which is the core usage model. An agent would have to infer how to iterate or how large a chunk may be.

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% across 4 required params, so the description must compensate. It loosely covers artifactId ('opaque ID'), workspaceId ('owner-bound'), and length ('bounded'), but 'offset' — the parameter that defines the entire chunking mechanism — is never addressed, and no format or range guidance is given.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Reads one ... binary artifact chunk', with qualifiers 'owner-bound, bounded' and 'by opaque ID'. An agent can tell it reads raw artifact bytes, not metadata or documents. Sibling differentiation comes only via the generic phrase 'resource links' rather than a named tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Use resource links for ordinary artifact consumption' gives an explicit when-not boundary, implying this tool is for lower-level/chunked access. It stops short of stating the positive trigger (partial reads, offset iteration, or large binaries) or rate/ownership prerequisites.

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