Read workflow artifact text file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: only valid UTF-8 text/JSON is returned, content is bounded by max_bytes and a server cap, sha256 fingerprints the complete file, the ZIP is temporary and never extracted, and GitHub is never modified. This enriches the annotation 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and then packs essential constraints (exact path, unexpired artifact, UTF-8, boundaries, hashing, ZIP handling) without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers constraints, safety, and behavior thoroughly for a read-only tool. With 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate and leaves no major gaps.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions providing clarity (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. The description mentions max_bytes and sha256 but these are implied by the schema; the description adds no new parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves one exact normalized file path from one exact, unexpired GitHub Actions artifact. It uses the specific verb 'retrieve' and distinguishes this from sibling tools like listing or getting artifact metadata.

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 specifies 'one exact' path and 'unexpired' artifact, making it clear this is for precise reads, not listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., gh_list_artifact_files) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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