get_global_artifact

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

The description's 'Read' aligns with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. It does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as caching or missing-ID behavior, but the annotations already disclose the key safety profile.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded. For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is the right size.

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 low complexity, annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It is almost complete, but a brief note on how this differs from list_global_artifacts or list_artifact_entries would have made it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention artifact_id or explain how to obtain its value, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The property name, required flag, and uuid format in the schema help, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning to the single required parameter.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('global artifact metadata'), so an agent can tell it reads a single artifact's metadata rather than performing an action. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_global_artifacts or list_artifact_entries, so the differentiation is clear from the wording but not stated.

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 purpose statement implies this tool is for retrieving metadata for a single named global artifact, and the required artifact_id makes the intended use clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to list_global_artifacts or list_artifact_entries for other lookup needs.

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