get_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it resolves and verifies, and that output includes checksum and local URI, which tells the agent this is a validation/lookup operation rather than a plain fetch.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and key constraint ('exact manifest path') appear immediately.

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 and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves a gap around the required job_id parameter and does not distinguish this lookup from sibling artifact/output discovery tools.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies that 'name' is the exact manifest path, but it never explains 'job_id' or clarifies how the two parameters combine. One of two required parameters is effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb pair (resolve and verify) and resource (an exported file), with scoping detail ('exact manifest path'). It implicitly separates this from listing tools like list_job_outputs, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'exact manifest path' implies you must already know the precise artifact name, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for discovering artifacts when the exact path is unknown.

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