Get workflow artifact metadata

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

While annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds that the artifact archive is never downloaded and that GitHub is never modified. This extra detail clarifies what side effects do not occur, providing behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences with front-loaded information: the verb and resource appear first, followed by key details and a safety note. Every phrase adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 metadata retrieval tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the tool's purpose, scope, and safety, and does not need to elaborate on return values because the output schema exists. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) but annotations and context cover the core.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for owner, repo, and artifact_id. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond identifying artifact_id as the exact identifier, which the schema already conveys. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool returns metadata for a single GitHub Actions artifact, specifying the fields (digest, expiry, workflow-run/head identity). It also notes it is read-only and does not download the archive, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_read_artifact_file and gh_list_run_artifacts.

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 description implies usage for metadata retrieval without downloading, contrasting with tools that download artifact files. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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