Get Artifact

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: text-like files come back inline while binary files return a URL, and a Personal Access Token will not work because this route is not in the PAT allowlist. That auth constraint is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return-format behavior and then the auth caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description still usefully summarizes the inline-vs-URL split. Purpose, response shape, and the auth prerequisite are all covered; only failure modes (missing thread or path) are left unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including an example path format and the pointer to deerflow_list_artifacts. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Fetch a single artifact file from a DeerFlow thread') with a scope qualifier ('single') that implicitly distinguishes it from the listing sibling. It stops short of naming deerflow_list_artifacts as the alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 schema's path description points the agent to deerflow_list_artifacts as the source of valid paths, which implies the intended workflow, and the PAT note flags an authentication precondition. However, the description never states when to choose this tool over siblings or when it is not applicable.

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