get_artifact_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does indicate that the tool returns a template and readiness sections, implying a read-only operation, and 'before writing' reinforces this. However, it does not disclose error behavior for unknown artifact types, exact output structure, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the output and the second gives the usage timing. No redundant phrasing or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and usage well, and the sibling tool list_artifact_types hints at a way to discover valid values. However, the absence of any parameter guidance or explicit pointer to list_artifact_types leaves a notable gap for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so more parameter context would improve completeness.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The only parameter, artifact_type, is simply restated in the description ('for an artifact type') without explaining valid values, format, or how to discover them. An agent cannot determine what string to pass for artifact_type from this definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource: the Markdown template for an artifact type, plus readiness-rule sections. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_artifact_types (which lists types), validate_artifact (which validates an artifact), and get_work_category (which gets a category).

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before writing the artifact.' This gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before writing' timing is strong enough guidance for an agent.

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