get_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns metadata and configuration, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens if the artifact is not found. This is minimal behavioral context for an agent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and is immediately scannable.

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 simple two-parameter read operation and complete schema, the description covers the basics. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not elaborate on the shape of the returned metadata/configuration or mention potential error conditions, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 100% and both parameters (artifactId, artifactType) are described with sufficient detail in the schema, including allowed values for artifactType. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already handles this.

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 a 'get' operation for a 'specific artifact,' which distinguishes it from list-type siblings like list_artifacts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_runtime_artifacts or other getters, so it stops short of fully differentiating among all siblings.

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 phrase 'specific artifact' implies this tool is for fetching a single artifact's details rather than listing all, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. It does not say what to do if the artifact does not exist or when to prefer this over get_runtime_artifacts.

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