clone_artifact

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not readonly (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and open world. The description adds that cloning creates a new artifact at a new name/scope, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether original is unchanged, how conflicts are handled). It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence with an optional tag, immediately conveying the core action and result. No extraneous words; front-loaded.

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 clones artifacts but lacks details on what exactly is cloned (e.g., relationships, dependencies), whether the original remains unaffected, and what happens if the target name/scope conflicts. The description is too brief for a clone operation, even with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description's phrase 'to a new name/scope' echoes the parameter semantics but adds no deeper meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Clone') and the resource ('platform artifact') and specifies the scope change ('to a new name/scope'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings, as no other clone tool exists in the list.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it suggest alternatives. The '[Scripting]' tag hints at context but is insufficient for explicit usage guidance.

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