provenance__get_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or permissions. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with a category prefix, containing no wasted words. Every part is relevant and front-loaded with the category context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, error behavior (e.g., artifact not found), or any additional behavioral context, leaving the agent underinformed for a complete understanding.

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 clarifies that artifact_id identifies the artifact to fetch, adding 'registered' implying the artifact must exist. However, it lacks details on format, constraints, or source of the ID.

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 action (Fetch) and the resource (one registered artifact) with the key identifier (artifact_id). The prefix 'provenance — genesis certificates, lineage, recalls' provides context, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'provenance__list_artifacts' and 'provenance__register_artifact'.

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 implies usage when you have an artifact_id and need a single artifact, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'provenance__list_artifacts' for multiple artifacts or 'provenance__verify_artifact' for verification. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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