stac_get_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the file is saved locally and returns metadata, but does not specify cleanup or potential side effects. Still, it provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 well-structured: summary, args, returns, tips, example. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes value. Concise enough for a tool with two parameters.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully describes return values (file_path, mime type, size, metadata) and provides an example. Both parameters are explained. Completeness is high for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains artifact_ref as 'Artifact ID from a previous download tool call' and distinguishes between preview_ref and artifact_ref. output_mode is mentioned with defaults. This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a stored artifact and save it as a local file for viewing.' It specifies the verb (retrieve/save) and resource (artifact), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle downloads of bands or composites.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides guidance on when to use preview_ref vs artifact_ref, and mentions the file is saved to a temporary directory. However, it lacks explicit exclusion criteria or comparison with alternative tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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