get_artifact

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

The description claims to return a 'download URL' but the 'Returns' section says 'the artifact file content as bytes,' creating a contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior, but it fails to clarify authentication needs, rate limits, or the actual return 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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is concise but not overly brief, with the first sentence directly stating the purpose. Minor redundancy exists in the 'Returns' line.

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?

Despite having an output schema (unshown), the description's return description contradicts the tool's stated purpose. It lacks guidance on usage context relative to siblings and does not address potential pitfalls. The artifact's nature and authentication steps are unclear.

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 'secure_filename' parameter is explained with context about its origin and format ('uuid1/uuid2/filename.ext'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic title and type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get authenticated download URL for a build artifact.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_public_artifact_url' and 'get_builds'.

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 such as 'create_public_artifact_url'. No context about prerequisites, authentication, or comparison with siblings is given.

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