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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention return behavior, error cases, side effects, or the fact that a default of include_content=true exists in the schema. The behavioral exposure is minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it omits useful behavioral and parameter context, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent would not know what the response looks like, what include_content controls, or how this fetch differs from list_artifacts beyond the id criterion.

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 compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter titles: artifact_id and include_content. In particular, it does not clarify what artifact_id should look like or what effect setting include_content to false has on the returned artifact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('an artefact') with an explicit retrieval criterion ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like save_artifact and list_artifacts, so an agent can identify its core function immediately.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_artifacts or get_evidence. 'By id' implies a use case, but the description never states when this is the right choice, when it is not, or what prerequisites exist.

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