get_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the artifact is 'immutable' and the return includes a local storage path, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors occur on invalid input, or any side effects. The description is silent on preconditions (e.g., task completion) and failure modes.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which may document return fields), the description lacks essential context for correct invocation: it does not explain the meaning of logical_name, any prerequisites, or how this tool differs from list_artifacts. An agent would struggle to know what to pass for logical_name without additional information.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It implies logical_name identifies a specific output of the task, but it does not explain what logical_name looks like, how to discover valid values, or the expected format for task_id. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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, specific action: 'Resolve one task output to its immutable artifact record and local storage path.' It identifies the resource (task output) and the result (artifact record + path), and distinguishes from siblings like list_artifacts (which lists artifacts) and get_task (which gets a task).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for a single artifact retrieval as opposed to list_artifacts, nor does it provide context on when it is appropriate over other task-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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