Get artifact text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the authorization scope (projects:read) and implies the text must already be extracted, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about size limits, truncation, or behavior when extraction has not completed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the reading order is correct.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are mostly present, but the definition is thin: it doesn't clarify the relationship between projectPid and artifactPid, what 'extracted' implies about timing/dependencies, or what the returned text looks like.

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 only 50%: artifactPid is documented as artf_* in the schema, but projectPid has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the extracted plain text of an artifact. It is distinguishable from siblings like air_get_document_download_url (raw file) and air_list_artifacts (enumeration), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 statement 'Requires projects:read' gives a prerequisite, which implies the calling context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the download-URL sibling. Usage is only weakly implied.

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