artifact_info

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('retrieve'), but does not disclose error behavior, size limits implied by 'bounded', authentication requirements, or response characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key identifier format.

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 (one parameter), but 'bounded artifact' and 'Crawl4AI artefact' are unexplained. Given there is no annotation or usage context, the description does not adequately inform an agent about what the artifact represents or how it fits into the broader tool ecosystem.

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 only provides a title and type for artifact_id, so the description's phrase 'opaque hexadecimal ID' adds crucial format information. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID or its exact constraints, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('Crawl4AI artefact'), clearly indicating this tool fetches an existing artifact by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform crawling or extraction, though 'bounded' is ambiguous and not explained.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining an artifact ID from a crawl job) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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