artifact_manifestVerify a managed project artifact by project and artifact ID, then export it to a private local directory and return its path, size, and SHA256 for integrity checks.
核验已有受管成品并导出到本机私有目录，返回localPath、大小和SHA256。只接受项目与成品ID，不接受任意路径。无需HTTP或Bearer凭据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| artifactId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it writes to a local private directory, it verifies before exporting, it returns localPath/size/SHA256, and it needs no HTTP/Bearer credentials — a useful auth disclosure. It stops short of saying what happens on re-export/overwrite or where the private directory lives.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose first, then input restriction, then auth note. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields. For a tool that writes a file to disk, it covers safety, auth, and return shape adequately; the unmentioned `kind` enum is the main residual gap.
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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify that projectId/artifactId must be IDs rather than paths, but the third parameter `kind` (enum: resource/director) is never mentioned, leaving a meaningful gap in a 3-parameter tool.
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 compound verb (核验 + 导出) against a specific resource (已有受管成品) and names the outputs (localPath、大小、SHA256). No sibling tool in the set handles artifacts, so the distinction is inherent rather than stated explicitly, which keeps it just below a 5.
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 implies usage (need a local copy of a managed artifact) and adds two hard constraints — only project/artifact IDs, no arbitrary paths — plus a credentials note. It never says when to use this versus alternatives or states preconditions (e.g., artifact must already be verified/ready).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.