adaptorch_get_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on return volume, pagination, artifact types, or behavior for missing/incomplete runs, which is a real gap for an openWorld read.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the key scoping detail front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — trimming was never the tradeoff here.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description still leaves the agent guessing what 'artifacts' means and what comes back, and it does not point to the sibling that yields a run_id. Given the absence of an output schema, some return-value framing was warranted.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining run_id, yet it only restates the parameter name. It does not say what a run_id looks like, where to obtain it (e.g., from adaptorch_list_runs), or whether it can come from a different run's context.

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 ('Get') and resource ('run artifacts') scoped by run_id, which is enough to distinguish it from adaptorch_get_run and adaptorch_list_runs in intent. It stops short of saying what 'artifacts' actually are (files, logs, outputs), leaving mild ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus adaptorch_get_run or adaptorch_list_runs, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a completed run or valid run_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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