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 implies a read-only lookup via 'safe metadata' but never states that nothing is mutated, nor does it cover auth requirements, availability of a missing artifact, or the 'latest' default resolution behavior. With zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the enumeration supports it. The list formatting is slightly awkward but costs nothing in comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. For a 3-parameter lookup tool this is roughly adequate, but the absence of annotations plus undocumented project_id/version semantics leaves gaps an agent may hit when constructing a call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for the critical 'artifact' parameter by enumerating the six valid choices, which the schema lacks as an enum, but it says nothing about project_id or the version parameter (including how 'latest' is resolved).

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 verb and resource ('Get safe metadata and resource/file URIs for one generated artifact') and enumerates the artifact kinds, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_presentation_ir or list_versions, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative, even though get_presentation_ir and list_versions are plausible competing entry points. The artifact enumeration implies the tool is the entry point for any artifact type, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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