get_run_artifact

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

Description adds behavioral detail (download and local path) beyond readOnlyHint annotation. However, it omits important traits like what happens if artifact doesn't exist, file size limits, or caching behavior. Annotations already cover read-only nature.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action and output. Efficient and scannable.

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 simple retrieval tool, the description covers basic action and output, but lacks details on error handling, expected path format, or whether the path is temporary. With no output schema, more context about the return value would be helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage for both parameters. Description does not provide any additional meaning for 'run_id' or 'artifact_path', leaving agents to infer their format or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'download and return' and resource 'specific artifact', with specific output 'local path'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_artifact_content' which returns content, and 'get_run_artifacts' which lists artifacts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools like 'get_artifact_content' for cases where content is needed instead of path.

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