Read Artifact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'without flooding context' behavior, but it does not describe failure behavior, cursor limits, or what happens when the server caps bytes; the schema carries that weight.

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. 'Retrieve large result sections without flooding context' conveys purpose and usage in one line.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema presence, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain the distinction between markdown-heading sections and typed result sections, but the schema already does that.

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 100%, with clear explanations for artifact_id, cursor, section, and max_bytes. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says exactly what the tool does—retrieve large result sections—and adds the outcome ('without flooding context'). It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like inspect_symbol or search_evidence.

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?

'Retrieve large result sections without flooding context' supplies a clear condition for when to use this tool: when a result is large enough that context needs careful pagination. It names no exclusions or alternatives, so it is useful but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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