get_artifact

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 discloses the retrieval (read) nature and the constraint that agent_id must belong to the session, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, access requirements, or return shape—gaps that would help an agent anticipate edge cases.

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 organized into clear sections—purpose, triggers, workflow, and parameters—with a one-line summary up front. Every section contributes useful information, and there is no redundant fluff.

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 read tool with three required string parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does, when to call it, and what each parameter means. It stops short of describing the response format or error conditions, but those are less critical for this straightforward retrieval operation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: session_id as the containing session, artifact_id with a concrete example format, and agent_id with a membership constraint. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare parameter titles in the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the full content of a specific artifact' and clarifies that artifacts are saved analyses or reports. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_finding, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can understand what the tool does.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section lists three concrete conditions for calling the tool, and the 'WORKFLOW POSITION' section provides ordering guidance relative to list_artifacts. It lacks explicit when-not-to-call or alternative tool routing, but the trigger list gives clear direction.

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