preview_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: output is bounded, UTF-8, and does not expose host paths. It could be more explicit about truncation or offset behavior, but it adds value beyond 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 focused sentence with the verb first and the resource immediately after. The security qualifier is useful and not redundant, and every word earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations carry the return values and safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, parameter semantics and selection guidance are missing, leaving an agent to guess at offset units and when this tool should be used. This is adequate 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%, so the description has the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not define artifact_id, offset, max_bytes, or max_lines, nor does it clarify units or how offset and limits interact. 'Bounded' only weakly hints at max_bytes and max_lines.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read bounded UTF-8 process or validation output. It also adds a useful scope constraint, 'without exposing a host path.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_artifact or the various extract_* tools.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternatives. An agent must infer when preview_artifact is preferred over get_artifact, list_artifacts, or extraction tools, which is a significant gap.

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