取得交付檔案路徑

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful client-type caveat, but says nothing about what 'verified' entails, error behavior, or path availability. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the local/remote distinction is packed in without filler.

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?

Complexity is low and annotations cover safety, so the sentence is close to complete. However, with the lone required parameter undocumented and no output schema, the agent lacks guidance on how to form the call and what the returned path is relative to.

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 single required parameter 'name' is completely unexplained in both schema and description. The description never mentions the parameter, leaving the agent to guess whether it expects a filename, artifact ID, or path.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return a verified artifact path') and adds a scope qualifier ('for local clients'). It is separable from list_artifacts in intent, though it never explicitly names a sibling. Clear but lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (local clients) and when not (remote clients, which 'should use download links'). The alternative is described generically rather than as a named tool, so routing is implied but not fully actionable.

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