Read Artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. The description adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing the bounded-chunk behavior and namespace restriction, which matter for pagination and access control.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, with every word earning its place. It is compact, unambiguous, and easy to parse.

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?

With a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It could explicitly mention pagination, but the schema's offset description already covers the mechanics.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only restates the bounded-chunk concept already implied by limit/offset.

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 (Read), a precise resource (execution artifact), and a scope qualifier (bounded chunk, caller's namespace). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like transform_artifact and get_run without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clear context on what the tool does and its constraints (bounded chunk, namespace), so an agent can infer when reading an artifact is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the choice vs siblings to inference.

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