tandem_read_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses immutability, Unicode character-based offsets, the limit range, pagination via next_offset, and an important security property that IDs never resolve local files.

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 first states purpose and pagination, the second gives parameter semantics and a security caveat. Every sentence earns its place and key constraints are front-loaded.

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-value documentation is not required. The description covers purpose, pagination behavior, parameter semantics, and security. The only noticeable gap is a lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other read/list siblings.

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 explain parameters. It clarifies artifact_id as a coordinator/OMP-shared immutable artifact ID, limit as 1..50000, and offset as Unicode character count, though it leaves defaults to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read an immutable artifact version shared by the coordinator and OMP'. This distinguishes it from sibling writing/publishing tools like tandem_publish_artifact and from broader listing tools, so an agent can understand what it targets.

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 context is clear: this tool reads immutable artifact versions and paginates with next_offset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the shared-by-coordinator-and-OMP framing plus the 'never resolve arbitrary local files' caveat provides practical guidance.

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