convoy_get_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: images come back as MCP image content, other files are verified and returned as a local temporary path, and the artifact is private. It omits the side effect of writing a temp file to the client machine, permission requirements, and what happens on timeout.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by output behavior and then the input guidance. No filler or restated name/title.

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?

Return-values are well explained, which matters since there is no output schema. However, with no annotations and four required parameters at zero description coverage, the definition leaves the host/node/convoy identifier relationships and failure modes undocumented.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, including a nested 'artifact' object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the 'artifact' parameter (a reference returned by a Convoy job) but says nothing about target_host_id, target_node_id, convoy_id, or the timeout_s bound.

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 ('Materialize one private Convoy artifact from its owning host onto this client machine') and immediately distinguishes itself from convoy_save_artifact by direction of data flow. The return-format sentence makes the operation's nature unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete usage directive: use the artifact reference returned by a Convoy job rather than a remote filesystem path. This tells the agent what input to supply, but it never contrasts this tool with sibling convoy_save_artifact or explains when retrieval is appropriate versus leaving the artifact on the host.

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