ProvenPin

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds genuine behavior: versions is 'Used only for this call, never stored' (a statelessness guarantee) and produces a compatibility section classifying each package as exact/compatible/mismatch/not in your project. It doesn't describe failure modes for an invalid or stale id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the return contents before the versions behavior, and every sentence carries information. The closing imperatives ('Adapt names and config to the user's project...') are useful downstream guidance but lengthen an already dense paragraph, costing a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does so concretely (files with byte-level hashes, pinned versions, commands, test receipt fields). Combined with the versions semantics and non-storage note, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 only 50% (the id property is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining where ids come from. For versions it goes beyond the schema by naming the downstream effect (compatibility section with four outcome categories) and advising to 'Use the pinned versions together'. That is meaningful semantic value over the structured fields.

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+resource ('Get a full recipe by id') and enumerates exactly what the recipe contains (source/test files with sha256, pinned dependency versions, setup/test commands, test receipt). It also names the sibling that produces ids ('ids come from search_recipes'), so the agent can distinguish it from search_recipes and list_stacks without opening another schema.

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 id provenance ('ids come from search_recipes') gives clear routing: call search_recipes first, then get_recipe. 'Optional but recommended' for versions tells the agent when to bother passing it. What's missing is an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to list_stacks, but the surrounding context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only stacks with *passing, version-pinned* recipes are listed, and the returned names are directly usable as a filter value. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or result size, which is a minor residual gap.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the resource and its inclusion criteria, the second handles usage and routing. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (names plus counts) and why an agent would call it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not waste words on parameter semantics.

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 (list) and resource (libraries/frameworks with passing, version-pinned recipes) plus the shape of the result (with recipe counts). This distinguishes it cleanly from get_recipe and search_recipes.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('before searching' to check coverage, 'after a search returns nothing') and routes the agent onward by naming the sibling tool and the field to reuse ('stack filter in search_recipes'). No exclusions or alternatives are left to inference.

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

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

Annotations only cover read-only and closed-world, so the description carries most of the burden and does: results are filtered to latest-test-passed, each carries pinned versions and receipt.last_passed_at, versions are used only for the call and never stored. It stops short of stating pagination or ranking limits beyond 'rank first'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and usage trigger, then examples, then result semantics and fallback. Dense but every clause serves a purpose; the parenthetical library-pair list is long though it directly helps query construction.

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, so the description correctly explains the return shape (pinned versions, test receipt, compatibility summary), result filtering, and the fallback path. It omits pagination behavior and whether empty-result calls have side effects, but overall an agent has what it needs to call this safely and correctly.

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 60%, so the description must compensate for the uncovered params (limit, language, stack): it explains that versions accepts a lockfile or a {package: version} map and that matching installed versions rank first with a compatibility summary. limit, language, and stack are left entirely to the schema, which is a visible gap but not a fatal one.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('find a tested, version-pinned code recipe for wiring libraries together') that sharply distinguishes it from sibling get_recipe (singular retrieval) and list_stacks (coverage browsing). It also names when to invoke it, before writing glue code, which no sibling claims.

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?

Explicit triggering conditions ('BEFORE writing glue code that combines 2+ libraries', 'when you hit version conflicts, peer-dependency errors, or integration errors'), example queries supplied, and a fallback rule ('If nothing matches, write the code yourself; try list_stacks'). This is close to exhaustive routing guidance.

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