get_runtime_artifact

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

No annotations exist. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the bare phrase 'Get details'. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or what 'details' means. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description is very concise, using only 8 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but could benefit from a slightly more structured sentence (e.g., 'Retrieves detailed information about a specific deployed runtime artifact, identified by its artifact ID.').

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally viable. However, with many sibling tools and no explanation of what 'details' entails, it lacks enough context for an agent to confidently select and invoke it without prior knowledge.

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%, yet the description offers no additional information about the single parameter artifact_id. It does not specify the format, expected value, or how to obtain it, relying entirely on the parameter name which may be insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific deployed runtime artifact'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_integration_flow or get_integration_package, which could cause confusion despite the distinct resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_runtime_artifacts for multiple artifacts). There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriateness, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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