Artifact Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the payload is base64 and implicitly warns about size by telling the agent to confirm file_size first, but it says nothing about size limits, token/memory cost, or auth requirements for reaching the blob.

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?

Front-loads the return payload, then use-case, then example — tight and scannable with no filler. The 'Retorna' line partially duplicates the existing output schema, but it costs little and aids fast reading.

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 values needn't be spelled out, and the item_get cross-reference covers the main workflow. However, for a 2-param tool the undocumented connection_id and absent guidance on large/failed fetches leave real gaps.

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% for both parameters. The example shows artifact_id in use but never explains where it comes from or what it identifies, and connection_id is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource and the exact payload ('Conteúdo de um anexo em base64'), which is a specific verb-free but unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from item_get by noting that item_get is where you check file_size before fetching the artifact itself, so an agent can route between them.

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?

'Use quando: Precisar do arquivo em si' gives an explicit trigger condition and names the alternative (item_get / file_size) as a prerequisite check. No explicit when-not case, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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