artifact_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' signals a non-destructive operation, but no details are given about return format, error behavior (e.g., not found), or authentication context. For a simple fetch, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit disclosure of expected side effects or edge cases.

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?

The description is a single five-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given the simplicity of a single-parameter read operation, the description covers the core functionality but lacks information about the return value (though implied) and behavior when the id does not exist. With no output schema, a sentence like 'Returns the artifact object' would improve completeness. Still, the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' as a string, but the description's 'by id' clarifies that this parameter is the identifier used to select the artifact. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing the essential semantic for the sole parameter, making its purpose clear.

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 states the verb 'Read' with the specific resource 'artifact' and the scope 'by id', clearly distinguishing this from artifact_list (which retrieves multiple artifacts) and artifact_add/update (which mutate). This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 phrase 'by id' gives clear context that this tool is for fetching a single artifact when its identifier is known, implicitly contrasting with listing or modifying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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