get_artifact_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read operation (fetches an example) and describes the content of the output. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately explains the output (a filled example with concrete data). It covers the main use case. However, it could mention that the tool returns a single example, not a list, and provide a bit more detail on how the slug relates to other tools.

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 add meaning for the single parameter 'slug'. It describes it as 'given a parent node slug', which provides context but does not explain what a 'slug' is or how to obtain it. For a single required parameter, the description adds moderate value but not full clarity.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('filled-in example for a given parent node slug'). It specifies what the example contains (concrete numbers, supplier names, findings) and its use as a reference. Differentiates from sibling 'list_artifact_examples' by focusing on a single specific example.

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 suggests the tool is 'useful as a few-shot reference', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_artifact_examples' for browsing. The context is clear but lacking exclusions.

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