fow_get_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value beyond them: breadth of the read when generation_id is omitted (all retained generations), and the important operational note that the coding host writes returned content to disk using its own file tools rather than this tool persisting anything. No indication of pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses short labeled lines (Single operation / Prerequisites / Effects) that are easy to scan. The trailing templated capabilities-help sentence is boilerplate filler that slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers prerequisites, filtering scope, and content handling adequately. Minor omissions remain around pagination or volume expectations for large generation sets.

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%, so the schema already documents project_id, generation_id, artifact_kind and include_content with semantics comparable to the description. The description repeats the filtering behavior without adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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+resource ('Retrieve retained artifact generations and optionally their document contents') with the filtering axes named. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling fow_generate_artifacts and from the other fow_* tools.

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?

Explicitly says it is a single operation with no operation argument, and lists the prerequisite (select an existing project) plus how generation_id narrows scope. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use / use X instead' pointer back to fow_generate_artifacts for creating artifacts.

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