vastu_job_artifact

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

The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: no arbitrary URLs are fetched and reads do not charge. It does not cover authorization requirements or error behavior, but it adds meaningful safety and cost context.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies enough context on stable IDs, completed items, URL scope, and cost, though it could say more about prerequisite job state and failure modes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies jobId and itemId as stable IDs for a completed item, which is helpful, but it does not explain the ID formats or constraints beyond what the schema's pattern/minLength rules already enforce.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch the completed item artifact and original receipt using stable job and item IDs. It is more specific than the bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling vastu_job_results tool.

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?

It implies this is for retrieving an exact completed item by stable IDs, and notes that HTML reports use format:html at submit. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus vastu_job_results or what prerequisites are required, such as the job being completed.

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