artifact.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a signed URL is optional but does not explain any side effects, prerequisites (like authentication), or the time-limited nature of signed URLs. It also doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and the optional parameter behavior efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value structure. It only says 'metadata' and 'signed download URL' without detailing format, error behavior, or what happens if the artifact does not exist. Given the simplicity of the tool, more context is still needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'artifact metadata' and 'optionally a signed download URL', which maps to include_signed_url, but it does not explain artifact_id at all, nor does it note that include_signed_url defaults to true (making the signed URL included by default). This leaves the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 artifact metadata and optionally a signed download URL. The verb 'Retrieves' is specific, and the resource is clearly 'artifact metadata'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like artifact.list_pending (listing) and artifact.cleanup (deletion).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single artifact by ID, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like artifact.list_pending. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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