agora_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. It discloses that the returned artifact is untrusted, which is important for downstream handling. However, it does not describe error behavior, permissions, or what 'published versions' includes, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 extraneous content. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key safety note.

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 tool has an output schema, so return structure need not be described. However, with no annotations and sparse parameter documentation, the description should provide more context on usage, permissions, or handling of untrusted content to be fully complete for an agent.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the single parameter 'artifact_id' beyond what the name implies. The baseline for 1 parameter with no schema description is 4, but the description could have specified the expected format (e.g., UUID) or source; it does not, so a 3 reflects minimal added value.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Artifact and its published versions'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like agora_list_artifacts and agora_get_module. It does not explicitly differentiate from agora_read_artifact_version, though the scope differs (artifact + versions vs. a single version).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is for retrieving a full artifact by id, but there is no mention of alternatives like agora_list_artifacts or how to access a specific version.

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