view_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the artifact is rendered inline into the conversation rather than written to a file, it targets Claude/Codex surfaces, and it only applies to completed jobs. It omits failure behavior for missing/incomplete artifacts.

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 key constraint ('completed job') and the output mode ('inline') both appear early.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rendering mode adequately. It leaves the artifact-naming parameter and error cases undocumented, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 hints that 'crop or preview' variants exist (likely tied to the 'name' parameter, defaulting to preview.jpg) but never explains what 'name' should contain, whether it is a filename or key, or what job_id expects.

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?

Specific verb ('Show ... inline') plus resource ('a completed job's PNG/JPEG crop or preview'), which distinguishes it from download_artifact (saves to disk) and inspect_media. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'a completed job's' implies the precondition that the job must be finished, which is useful gating. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over download_artifact or inspect_media, and no note on what happens if the job is still running.

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