get_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are 'bounded', the URI is 'opaque', and the tool 'never' returns a host path or bytes, which clarifies what callers can and cannot rely on.

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 with no filler. It states the core return contract and the key safety exclusion without repeating schema or annotation information.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is returned and what is never returned. The main gaps are parameter semantics and explicit sibling routing, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain artifact_id's origin, format, or relationship to the returned URI. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning, and with zero schema coverage it fails to compensate for that gap.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('artifact'), and the exact output shape: 'bounded metadata and an opaque resource URI, never a host path or bytes.' This distinguishes it from related siblings like preview_artifact and get_artifact_pipeline without requiring schema inspection.

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 when to use the tool: when you need metadata or an opaque URI rather than raw bytes or a host path. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative or state conditions like 'use preview_artifact for bytes', so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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