artifact_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a genuinely important trait: reads are audience-scoped and an outside caller receives NOT_FOUND that is deliberately indistinguishable from a missing id. That is valuable context an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not state permission/auth requirements or whether the operation is read-only in a broader sense, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the security caveat second. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the non-obvious audience-scoping behavior. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission expectations remain unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the project_root-to-workspace relationship already captured in the schema. It adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (artifact by id) plus the scoping mechanism (workspace resolved from project_root). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling artifact_put, which performs the inverse operation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Retrieve an artifact by id' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., artifact_put for writes, or a listing tool). The audience-scoping sentence hints at a failure mode but does not guide tool selection.

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