kin_artifact_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond that: content is returned as text when valid UTF-8, else base64. Auth/rate-limit behavior is still unspecified, but the return-encoding trait is real added context.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the return-format caveat are front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause carries 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?

No output schema, so the description usefully explains the return form (text vs base64) and the identification modes. With read-only annotations and 75% schema coverage, this is largely sufficient, though it could clarify what happens when neither identifier resolves.

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 75% and the schema already documents path, include_bytes, and source_change_id. The description restates the artifact_id-or-path alternative identity, which mirrors the anyOf constraint rather than extending it; no extra syntax or defaulting detail for include_bytes is added.

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 (Read) and resource (one tracked file's exact content) and specifies the two identification modes. It further distinguishes itself from entity-source siblings by scoping to 'a file the parsers made no entities for', so an agent can tell it apart from get_entity_source.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria: 'Call it for a file the parsers made no entities for, which a locate hit's artifact_path means.' This ties invocation to the output of semantic_locate. It does not name the complementary tool (get_entity_source) for the opposite case, so no full when-not routing.

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