download_pipeline_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states it returns textual content. It does not mention potential issues with binary files, file size limits, required permissions, or what happens if the artifact does not exist. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence of 13 words that directly conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify the return format for textual content, error handling (e.g., file not found), limitations (e.g., only textual files), or any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured metadata, the description should provide more context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented (e.g., artifactPath format, pipelineId guard). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool downloads a file from a pipeline run artifact and returns its textual content. It uses specific verb-resource language and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file_content (repository files) and get_pipeline_log (logs).

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 the tool is for retrieving file content from pipeline artifacts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_pipeline_log for logs, get_file_content for repo files) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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