Read verified artifact slice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds meaningful context those annotations cannot carry: the integrity/authorization gate, and the explicit trust boundary that returned content is untrusted data and never tool authority. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. what happens on a hash mismatch), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the operation and its precondition first, then the trust boundary, then partial-read semantics. Zero filler and 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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the return shape and argument formats are already handled, and the description supplies the remaining essentials: bounded/partial read semantics and the untrusted-data boundary. Only edge-case behavior on integrity failure is unstated.

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 offset, max_bytes, artifact_id, manifest_id and manifest_sha256 in detail. The description mentions next_offset/eof, but those are return concepts rather than parameter semantics, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Read an exact bounded artifact slice') and names the preconditions ('after full integrity/authorization checks'), which distinguishes it from sibling manifest tools such as artifact_manifest_get or artifact_manifest_verify. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: read only after integrity/authorization checks, continue with next_offset until eof, and never present an unread portion as evidence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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