air_get_artifact_text

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the relevant permission requirement ('projects:read'), which is behavioral context not captured by annotations. No contradictions or misleading statements are present.

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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence and an added permission note. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description implies the result is plain text, but it does not specify the format, structure, or any potential error conditions. The simplicity of the tool (2 params) reduces the need for extensive detail, but additional output context would improve completeness.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, only `artifactPid` has a brief description ('Artifact pid (artf_*)'), while `projectPid` lacks any description. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage, relying heavily on the schema which is partially undocumented.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('extracted plain text for an artifact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, such as `air_get_document_download_url` (which provides URLs) and `air_list_artifacts` (which lists artifacts), by focusing on retrieving the text 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?

The description mentions a permission prerequisite ('Requires projects:read'), which is helpful. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like `air_list_artifacts` or `air_get_document_download_url`, nor does it provide scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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