read_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral difference for binary artifacts (returns path instead of content), which is valuable. However, it omits other behaviors like error handling, authentication, or what happens when the artifact doesn't exist, so it's only partially transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the binary-artifact nuance. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the tool has two required parameters with no schema descriptions and the description does not explain them. There is no guidance on how to obtain valid task_id or filename, nor any reference to sibling tools for context. The description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without external 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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention task_id or filename at all, nor their meanings or relationships. The agent is left to infer that task_id identifies a task and filename an artifact, but this is not explicitly stated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb (read) and resource (artifact), and further clarifies behavior for text vs binary artifacts (path return). It distinguishes itself from list_artifacts by focusing on reading a specific artifact rather than enumerating 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 description implies when to use this tool (to read a specific artifact) without explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives. Since list_artifacts is a sibling, a note on using that for enumeration would help, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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