Read a generated artifact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about returned content types and an output-root restriction, but says nothing about error behavior, path resolution, or what happens when a path falls outside the root.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the return types and appends the key scoping constraint. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate about what it returns and its boundary. However, it leaves the crucial path semantics underspecified, which is the main thing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the sole parameter, path, has no description in the schema. The phrase 'restricted to the output root' hints at path scope, but it does not explain whether the path is relative or absolute, what format is expected, or how extensions map to artifact types.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the resource types returned: PNG images, editable sources, or manifests. It is clearly a read operation and distinguishable from the generator/renderer siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. 'Restricted to the output root' is a scope constraint, not usage advice, so an agent must infer that this tool is for fetching already-generated artifacts.

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