read_workflow_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. 'Bounded' hints at truncation and 'Read' implies read-only, but permissions, what happens at the byte limit, error behavior (missing run/artifact), and pagination semantics are all undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue at this complexity.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but with five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an ambiguous 'authority' concept, the one-sentence description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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% across five parameters. The phrase 'bounded report or manifest slice' loosely gestures at max_bytes, offset, and artifact, but does not explain run_id, valid artifact names, response_format options, or offset units, leaving most parameter meaning to inference.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource ('report or manifest slice') are stated, but 'from the authority' is undefined jargon and there is no differentiation from the sibling tools, none of which appear to read artifacts. An agent gets the gist but not a precise scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to pick. The only implied context is that it relates to a workflow run (run_id), which doesn't help an agent choose it over get_workflow_status or the research-pack tools.

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