get_build_artifacts

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It only says 'get artifacts' without disclosing what 'get' means (list? download?), any required permissions, or behavior for incomplete builds. The parameter 'format' hints at output format but is not explained.

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?

Description is one short phrase, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information beyond the bare purpose. A slightly expanded description could improve clarity without adding verbosity.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned artifacts look like, any limitations (e.g., only from successful builds), or how to interpret the 'format' parameter. The tool's behavior is underspecified.

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 clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'artifacts produced by a build'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_build' which fetches build metadata, or 'get_build_log' which fetches logs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool list includes many get_* tools, but the description does not help the agent differentiate. It is implied that one uses this for artifacts, but no when-not or context provided.

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