ci_artifacts_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. The only hint of behavior is the HTTP verb 'GET', which is already implied by the tool name, so there is no added context about auth requirements, error behavior, or what happens with an unknown id.

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?

It is short, but the parenthetical duplicates the exact same route string and conveys no additional information, making it pure noise rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose or scope.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only echoes the route, an agent has no way to know what is returned (file metadata? download links?) or how this differs from the sibling artifact relationship tools. This is completely inadequate for a retrieval tool in a large API surface.

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%: both 'id' and 'fields_ciArtifacts' (with its enum of fileType/fileName/fileSize/downloadUrl) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 is effectively a restatement of the tool's route: 'GET /v1/ciArtifacts/{id}'. The 'GET' verb and 'ciArtifacts' resource are visible in the name itself, so nothing new is conveyed — no statement of what a CI artifact record actually is or what the call returns. It does not distinguish this from siblings like ci_build_actions_artifacts_get_to_many_relationship or ci_artifacts_get_instance variants.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what prerequisite state is required, or which alternative to choose when the artifact id is unknown. An agent must guess between this and the many other ci_* retrieval tools.

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