Get Prismism Artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context by specifying that 'analytics' are included in the response, not just static details. However, it omits other behavioral traits like error handling for missing IDs, caching behavior, or whether the analytics are real-time.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately qualifies the scope ('details and analytics') and targeting mechanism ('by ID').

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 low complexity (single string parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It informs the agent of the tool's read-only retrieval purpose and the nature of the returned data without needing exhaustive elaboration.

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 100% description coverage ('Artifact ID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces this with 'by ID' but does not add significant semantic depth regarding the ID format or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Prismism Artifact'), and specifies the return type ('details and analytics'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like prismism_list (specific vs. collection) and prismism_delete/update (read vs. write operations), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the prerequisite of having a specific artifact identifier, suggesting when to use this tool versus prismism_list. However, it lacks explicit guidance contrasting with siblings or stating error conditions (e.g., invalid ID).

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