artifact_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the list of returned fields (name, size, content type, download URL), which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or data format.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key returned fields, followed by a reference link. There is no wasted text, and every word contributes value.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It lists the returned metadata fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it omits parameter explanation and does not leverage the sibling context to guide tool selection, leaving a notable gap in completeness.

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 does not describe the parameter 'artifactId' at all. The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It fails to explain what the parameter represents, its format, or constraints, leaving the agent without meaningful semantic guidance.

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 clearly states that it retrieves artifact metadata and lists example fields (name, size, content type, download URL). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'artifact metadata', but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'artifact_fetch_from_url', which likely fetches the actual file content rather than metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like 'artifact_fetch_from_url'. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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