inspect_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'summarise' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it does not state what happens when the prefix is ambiguous or matches nothing, nor any permission or cost characteristics.

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 with no filler: the primary operation and its output content come first, and the identifier-acceptance note is tacked on efficiently. The parenthetical list is dense but each item is meaningful.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, summary contents and input format, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior for non-unique prefixes and any note on sibling selection.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that artifact_id accepts a full id or a unique prefix. The ambiguity/error behavior of the prefix is left unstated, keeping it below 5.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Summarise an artifact') and enumerates exactly what the summary covers (axis, unit, shape, axes, extent, sample rate, NaN fraction, provenance). That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from list_artifacts, compare_artifacts and export_artifact, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage-adjacent sentence is about identifier format ('full id or unique prefix'), which is input guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over describe_operation, list_artifacts or compare_artifacts, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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