get_artifact_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool reads and returns metadata, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose preconditions, error behavior, or whether artifact content is ever accessed. This is acceptable but not fully 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 that directly states what the tool returns. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication; every word 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?

For a simple metadata getter with an output schema and one obvious required parameter, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The main shortfall is the lack of guidance on optional parameters and alternative tools, but the core invocation path is clear.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The required 'handle' is reasonably inferable as an artifact identifier from context, but 'command_id' and 'idempotency_key' remain entirely unexplained. The description adds no value over the raw schema for parameter meaning.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('a managed artifact'), and enumerates the exact metadata fields returned: size, type, hash, expiry, and producer metadata. This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling read_artifact tool by stating that it only returns metadata rather than content.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_artifact, delete_artifact, or cleanup_artifacts. The name implies info retrieval, but the description does not state exclusions or direct agents to a sibling when they need artifact content or mutation.

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