pull_artifact

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true is annotated, the description goes beyond by explaining that it returns content inline and, when NOWAIKIT_SYNC_DIR is set, writes one file per field and returns the paths. This local write side effect is important behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Local sync'). Each clause adds essential information: the action, the inline return, the optional file writing behavior, and the scope distinction from export.

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 two required parameters and strong schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, including return format and conditional file output. It also clarifies the single-artifact scope relative to exports, covering the primary context needed for correct use.

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?

The schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (table and sys_id, including resolution of names to sys_ids), so the description adds only a concrete example (widget fields) rather than new parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool fetches an artifact's editable fields for local editing, using specific verbs and resource types (e.g., Service Portal widget's template/css/script). It distinguishes itself from update-set export, making its purpose distinct from similar sibling tools.

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?

It opens with 'Local sync', providing context for when this tool is appropriate, and explicitly contrasts with update-set export. However, it does not name alternative tools like get_portal_widget or get_script_include, so some guidance on choosing among siblings is missing.

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