Show a failure artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the artifact is redacted and lists what it contains, which gives the agent some expectation about output sensitivity and composition. However, it does not explicitly state whether retrieval is side-effect-free, what happens for invalid or missing artifacts, or how redaction may limit the data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds relevant information: the action, the redaction behavior, and the artifact's contents.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers purpose and high-level return contents, but it omits the semantics of 'id' and any indication of when an artifact is available. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the artifact's structure or failure conditions would have made this fully complete.

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 description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter, but it never explains what 'id' refers to or how to obtain it. The name and title weakly imply it is a failure artifact identifier, but the description adds no explicit parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('failure artifact'), and goes beyond the title by naming the artifact's contents: failed request, failed strategies, and optional DOM dump. This clearly distinguishes show_artifact from the general social and registry sibling 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_draft, dry_run, or plan. The description implies it is for retrieving failure artifacts, but it does not state when this is appropriate or when another diagnostic tool would be preferable.

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