art.provider.artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, side-effect-free retrieval, which is the core behavioral trait for a getter, but the description says nothing about what happens for unknown artifact_ids, error conditions, or the returned detail structure. For a single-parameter read tool this is acceptable 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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no wasted words: 'Get details of a generated artifact.' It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool and front-loads the core action, though it is more minimal than rich.

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 low-complexity tool (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema) the description covers the basic operation, but the meaning of 'details' is undefined and the tool can still be confusing among siblings. The lack of output schema means the description could have explained what the agent receives, so overall completeness is only partial.

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%, so the schema alone contributes almost nothing beyond the parameter name and type. The phrase 'generated artifact' adds real meaning by clarifying that artifact_id refers to a produced artifact rather than an asset or provider instance, though it does not explain ID format, provenance, or how the ID relates to outputs of art.provider.execute or art.provider.operation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'get details' of a 'generated artifact,' so an agent can tell what kind of operation this is. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like art.asset.get, art.provider.get, or art.asset.inspect_version — the word 'generated' hints at the difference but leaves the contrast unspoken.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many look-alike getters in the family (art.asset.get, art.provider.get, art.asset.inspect_version). With over 70 sibling tools and no exclusions or alternative routing, an agent must guess the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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