read_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly reveals that the returned value is the editable source, not the rendered chrome, and that the version parameter can read past iterations. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive/read-only or error behavior, which is implied.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose, a crucial nuance about the returned format, and a concrete workflow. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema. The description covers the key distinction between editable source and rendered output, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for ref (slug/URL/vanity domain) and version (from artifact_history). The tool description adds little beyond the 'editable source' context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('source of one of the user's artifacts'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining it returns the editable source (React/JSX or HTML), not the wrapped page. It also positions itself against write_artifact and artifact_history, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pair with write_artifact for edits and provides a read-modify-write workflow. It also hints at using artifact_history to obtain a version id for past iterations, giving concrete context for when to use the version parameter.

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