sdlc_get_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns content as Markdown or JSON depending on artifact type, and errors if the artifact hasn't been generated. This goes beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides structured Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions, but each sentence serves a purpose and the overall length is justified.

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 tool is simple, with two parameters and an output schema. The description covers all key aspects: purpose, artifact type selection, return format, and the error case for missing artifacts. It also references how to obtain project_id, making it self-contained.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for project_id and artifact_type, including valid enum values. The description repeats this information without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 opens with 'Fetch the full content of a specific artifact from a project,' which is a specific verb+resource. It then enumerates distinct artifact types (PRD, Architecture Overview, etc.), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling retrieval tools like sdlc_get_project_summary or sdlc_get_screens.

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 clarifies that it retrieves artifacts and mentions project_id should come from sdlc_list_projects, providing a clear context. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, but the artifact-type list makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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