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 behavioral burden. Beyond 'full content', it discloses nothing about permissions needed, behavior on an unknown/stale id, whether the response is truncated or paginated, or how large content is delivered. For a no-annotation read tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The parenthetical about id provenance is slightly tangled ('...gave') but still earns its place by telling the agent where to get the 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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter and the description covers the core call path, but with no annotations and no output schema it should say more about what comes back (raw content, metadata envelope, truncation) and failure modes. Adequate at minimum-viable level, not complete.

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% for the single artifact_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful provenance — the id is the value produced by list_artifacts or embedded in a resume packet — but it gives no format, validity, or error semantics for the 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'), resource ('one artifact's full content'), and the keying scheme (by id), which separates it from list_artifacts. It even names list_artifacts as the source of ids, giving implicit sibling differentiation. It falls short of a 5 only because the contrast with list_artifacts ('full content' vs. a listing) is implied rather than stated as a selection rule.

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 tells the agent where the artifact_id comes from (list_artifacts output or a resume packet's `artifacts` cards), which is real usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what to do if the id is stale, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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