get_artifact

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as returning specific error codes for unknown IDs, soft-deleted artifacts, and expired artifacts (HTTP 410).

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one param, read-only, no output schema needed), the description fully covers the behavior, return fields, and error cases.

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?

The schema has one parameter artifact_id with a regex pattern, which is self-explanatory. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the parameter name and schema imply, but it's sufficient for the simple parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could elaborate, but the param is well-defined.

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 it fetches metadata for a single artifact by ID, listing specific metadata fields (filename, content type, size, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_artifact_download_url which returns file bytes.

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 explains what the tool does and what it does NOT do (return file bytes), directing users to call get_artifact_download_url for that. It also lists specific error conditions (artifact_not_found, artifact_already_deleted, artifact_expired), providing clear guidance on expected behavior.

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