provenance__get_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or output format. It only states 'Fetch' and does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation or any error behaviors.

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 extremely concise with two components: a bracketed domain hint and a single sentence. It front-loads the domain context and immediately states the action, with no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites, which could be helpful but not critical for such a simple tool.

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%, but the description mentions the parameter 'artifact_id', adding context that it is used to identify the artifact. However, it does not elaborate on the format or allowed values beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'one registered artifact', and the parameter 'artifact_id'. The bracketed domain hint provides context, and the tool is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like list_artifacts or 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 the artifact details, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_artifacts, verify_artifact). This leaves some ambiguity.

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