sandbox_artifact

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return encoding (native MCP image vs base64) and that SHA-256 integrity metadata is included. It does not, however, discuss error behavior for missing/invalid artifacts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the return format and integrity metadata without waste. It is efficient, though terse to the point of omitting usage context.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return payload (PNG/base64 plus SHA-256), which is the most important missing piece. But the required parameter's semantics and the tool's relationship to retrieval siblings like sandbox_download are left unexplained.

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% and the single parameter 'artifact_id' has only a title, no description. The description adds nothing about what an artifact_id is, its format, or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and resource ('PNG'/'file') plus the output encoding formats, so the agent knows it retrieves artifact content. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sandbox_download, sandbox_screenshot, or sandbox_collect_evidence, leaving ambiguity about when this is the right retrieval 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., how the artifact_id is obtained), and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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