read_artifact

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the 100 MiB download limit, the parent-directory requirement, the never-overwrite guarantee, and checksum verification when metadata provides it. This is especially valuable given readOnlyHint=false, since it clarifies the download path writes a file.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and download behavior following. Every sentence carries new, non-redundant information.

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?

The main modes, constraints, and safety behavior are covered despite no output schema. It stops just short of full completeness by not specifying what an 'inline image' vs 'resource link' response looks like or the exact failure behavior when output_path's parent does not exist.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining byte-window reads and adding meaningful detail to output_path (absolute path, parent must exist, no overwrite). session_id and artifact_id are self-explanatory identifiers, and offset/max_bytes constraints are already in the schema.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool does: read a UTF-8 text byte window, inline a small image, or return a resource link. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and the three modes clearly distinguish it from session/run/artifact management siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit conditional for full-file download: supply an absolute output_path whose parent exists. It doesn't name alternative tools, but no sibling offers the same read functionality, so the mode-based guidance is sufficient.

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