get_artifact_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and that a failure/not-found case yields an error message, which is useful, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether lookups are cached — gaps that annotations would normally cover.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then cleanly organized into parameter and return sections. It is appropriately sized with little wasted text, though the return section somewhat duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an existing output schema, the definition covers the purpose, the one parameter's meaning, and failure behavior. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor missing context about prerequisites.

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% (schema only says 'Artifact Name'), so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that artifact_name is the Chinese name of the artifact set, a meaningful constraint beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取...声骸详细信息') and the output format (Markdown). It is clearly distinct from the character-focused siblings by targeting 声骸 (artifacts/echoes), though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 only says what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to prefer it over get_character_info or get_character_profile, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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