read_artifact_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the valuable behavioral constraint of the 64 KiB read limit and specifies the artifact format as JSON. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key limit with no wasted words.

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 has an output schema and annotations, which cover return format and safety, but the description still omits essential context about pagination semantics (e.g., whether offset is byte-based) and what artifact types are valid. It is minimally complete for a simple read tool but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of artifact_id, artifact_type, limit, or offset. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving semantics of offset and limit ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool reads a stored JSON artifact with a specific page size limit (64 KiB), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze or classify hotspots.

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 description implies usage for reading artifact data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention pagination or context for large artifacts. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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