get_pdw_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the return value is raw exact bytes rather than a parsed/inspected view, and the source is the configured output directory. It does not disclose error behavior for missing artifacts, encoding of the bytes, or size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key distinction (exact bytes, not parsed data) appears immediately and the source directory follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it says what is retrieved and from where. However, it omits what an agent most needs to call it correctly — the semantics of output_name and whether missing artifacts produce an error or empty result.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never explains what 'output_name' means (a filename, a relative path, a generated identifier) or its expected format. The only indirect hint is 'from the configured output directory', which suggests a filename but leaves the caller to guess.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a generated PDW artifact's exact bytes') plus the source location ('configured output directory'), which distinguishes it from parsing-oriented siblings like inspect_pdw. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast with get_ldr_artifact and inspect_pdw.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'generated PDW artifact' weakly implies the artifact must already exist via generate_pdw/generate_project_pdw, but nothing states when to fetch bytes here versus inspecting the PDW with inspect_pdw, nor what happens if the artifact is absent.

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