artifact_fetch_from_url

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: the tool stores the artifact, returns specific fields (fileInfo, _links, details), and maps 'url' to 'uri' for the API. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey action, return structure, and a key note. Front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

With 2 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context: the action, return shape, a crucial parameter note, and a reference link. No gaps identified.

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 description explains the critical mapping from 'url' (accepted by the tool) to 'uri' (API field), which is essential for correct usage. It also hints at the return structure, complementing the schema's full coverage of parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches an artifact from a public URL and stores it, distinguishing it from related tools like artifact_get. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'artifact from a public URL' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Describes the primary use case ('fetch an artifact from a public URL and store it'), providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., artifact_get for retrieval).

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