get_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'Retrieve' action. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authentication, error handling). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, immediately conveys the tool's core action. Perfectly concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Output schema exists but is not visible; the description could clarify what 'download information' includes (URL, size, etc.). Given 2 required params and no nested objects, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves ambiguity about the return value.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'jobId' or 'artifactId' parameters or their formats. It simply repeats the noun 'specific output artifact', adding no semantic value over the schema property names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'download information for a specific output artifact from a Jungle Grid job'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_artifacts' (list artifacts) and 'get_job' (get job info).

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_artifacts' or 'get_job_logs'.

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