soma_cold_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver one real behavioral fact: the content is verified against the hash, so a corrupted or tampered artifact should fail. It omits what happens on mismatch (error vs. null), any auth or size constraints, and any rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-free but unannotated tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the retrieval verb and the integrity-check behavior front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The extreme terseness is the source of the gaps scored elsewhere, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter the description is thin: it does not say what an 'artifact' is, how a hash mismatch surfaces, or what access is required.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'ref' property has no description, so the phrase 'по ссылке sha256' is the only thing telling the agent that ref is a SHA-256 digest. That is genuine added value, but it never states the expected encoding (hex vs. prefixed) or validation behavior.

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 Russian sentence names a specific verb ('Достать' = fetch) and resource ('артефакт по ссылке sha256'), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling soma_cold_put. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implies when the tool is used (when you hold a sha256 ref) and offers no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as soma_cold_put. An agent must infer the pairing with the sibling on its own.

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