read_artifact

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the returned content is untrusted (relevant for prompt-injection handling) and output is capped at 16 KiB. It does not say whether truncation is signalled or how to continue reading, which matters for a capped reader.

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?

It is front-loaded with the verb and free of filler, but the telegraphic fragment style omits connecting information that would have cost only a few words, so it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 four-parameter reader with no output schema, the definition leaves key gaps: the job_id/path relationship, what happens when the limit is reached, and whether the response indicates more content available. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not do enough for an agent to invoke this confidently on large artifacts.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries real burden. It partly compensates by revealing that offsets are in bytes (not lines or records) and that the read size cap is a KiB budget, which map to offset and limit. It says nothing about job_id or path, nor how the two required parameters combine to identify the artifact.

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 the verb 'Read' and characterises the content as 'untrusted text', which hints at artifact content and separates it loosely from siblings like list_artifacts or search_artifacts. However, it never says it reads the contents of a specific artifact file identified by job_id/path, so the resource is only implied by the tool name rather than the description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to use this when you need the raw contents of a file rather than its metadata, and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling set (list_artifacts, search_artifacts, inspect_apk). The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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