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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping constraint but does not describe return format, error behavior, or pagination. This is similar to baseline levels where annotations carry most of the transparency burden.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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 get operation with good annotations and a complete schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource, scope, and that it returns a single artifact. It does not detail return format, but that is typically self-evident for a fetch tool and is not required given the simplicity.

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 100%, with per-parameter descriptions like 'Artifact id' and 'User id'. The description adds meaning by stating 'scoped to a user and session', clarifying that user_id and session_id are scope constraints and artifact_id is the identifier. This relationship is not explicit in the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('a single artifact by id') and explicit scoping ('scoped to a user and session'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_artifacts or update_artifact, which have different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need one artifact by ID, and you know the user and session context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for a single-get tool. The context of user/session filtering is provided, which is valuable for selection.

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