store_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions storing (mutation) and returning a preview and ID, but fails to disclose other behaviors such as overwrite semantics, size limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and examples, the second adds return information. Every word earns its place.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage scenarios for each parameter, and behavioral constraints. The agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It never explains the meaning or usage of the six parameters (cwd, body, type, title, eventId, metadata). Some names are self-explanatory, but critical details like format, constraints, and optionality are absent.

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 action ('Store'), the resource ('large artifact'), and provides concrete examples (logs, command output, diffs, transcripts). It also mentions the return values (preview and stable ID). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like store_memory.

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 usage for storing large text-based outputs, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. While the examples help, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like store_memory or get_artifact.

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