octri_fetch_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect (writing artifacts into the local cache) and describes the return shape (per-language counts, content fingerprint). It omits permissions/auth needs, idempotency/re-fetch behavior, and whether cache writes are destructive or additive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Every clause earns its place, including the return-value sentence.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% param coverage, the description covers purpose and returns but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral constraints (auth, caching, repeat calls) unaddressed. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is only 33% (just project_id documented), and the description adds no meaning for build_id or languages beyond the indirect hint of 'per-language file counts'. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 pair ('Download and extract') and resource ('a build's artifacts'), plus the downstream purpose ('so their files can be listed and read'). It indirectly distinguishes itself from octri_list_generated_files and octri_read_generated_file, though it never names 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?

The clause 'so their files can be listed and read' implies this is a prerequisite to the list/read siblings, which is real usage context. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements, no prerequisites, and no sibling tools named outright.

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