get_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return value is 'bounded metadata' and an 'opaque resource URI', and it explicitly states 'never a host path or bytes', which is a meaningful security and format guarantee beyond the 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('Return') and includes a critical negative constraint. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy.

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 getter with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return boundary and the exclusion of host paths/bytes. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but given the annotations and output schema, this is an adequate level of detail.

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 has one required parameter, artifact_id, with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its format, source, or expected values. The parameter's purpose is partially inferable from the tool name, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Return bounded metadata and an opaque resource URI' clearly specifies the tool's output and purpose, and the name 'get_artifact' reinforces that it retrieves a specific artifact. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding host paths and bytes, but it could have been more direct about 'get the artifact with the given ID'.

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 'never a host path or bytes' clause provides an implicit usage boundary: use this tool for metadata and opaque URIs, not for raw artifact content. However, no specific alternatives are named, and there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other retrieval tools.

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