artifact_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: hash-locking for role='baseline' (write-once, tamper-proof), disabling sourcePath, and using measurement for tool-measured artifacts. However, it does not cover idempotency, error handling, or other side effects.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy: first states the primary function, then adds critical constraints on role and measurement.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and key constraints but lacks details on return values, error cases, and usage of other parameters like loop, phase, and rationale.

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 low (20%), but the description adds meaning to parameters like role (hash-lock behavior), measurement (tool-measured), and sourcePath (disabled). It does not address other parameters (loop, name, phase, content, etc.), leaving some gaps.

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's purpose: 'Persist a raw artifact (run log, baseline copy) with a sha256 hash.' It specifies the resource (artifact) and action (persist), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning hash-locking for baselines and measurement capabilities.

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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., for persisting artifacts with integrity, especially baselines) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Sibling tools like observation_record or run_campaign are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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