company_artifact_segment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool persists data, which implies a write/mutation action, but it does not explain side effects, authorization needs, what happens to existing segments, or the meaning of 'native citations.'

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 filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary action, though the phrase 'bounded derived segments with native citations' is compressed to the point of obscurity.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations. A one-sentence description is far from sufficient for an agent to correctly construct arguments or understand the resulting behavior.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the eight parameters. Required evidence_id, max_text, clearance, groups_json, projects_json, and native_locator_json all go unexplained, so the agent has no semantic guidance beyond raw parameter names.

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-resource pair: 'Inspect an artifact and persist bounded derived segments with native citations.' It conveys the core action of inspecting an artifact and creating segments, but the term 'bounded derived segments' is jargon-heavy and the description does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like company_artifact_inspect or company_artifact_snapshot.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and high-level action alone.

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