agent-provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what information it returns, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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?

At just two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, failing to provide enough context for effective tool selection.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description offers no context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full purpose.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4, and the description does not add extra meaning, which is acceptable since the schema fully defines the input.

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 'Fleet-standard self-description' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, merely hinting that it returns some self-description of the agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'lineage' and 'list_records' are not contrasted, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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?

The description discloses the tool fetches data (read-only behavior) and specifies the two components returned. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or rate limits, which would be beneficial.

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 a single concise sentence without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the certificate and status parts.

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?

Given the simple interface (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on output format or edge cases, but for a straightforward fetch tool it is minimally adequate.

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 schema has one parameter 'agent_id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any explanation about the expected format, examples, or constraints for the parameter.

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 clearly states the action 'Fetch' and the specific resources: 'agent's genesis certificate + recall/quarantine status'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'verify_certificate' (which likely checks validity) and 'recall' (which may perform a revocation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'describe_agent' or 'verify_certificate'. It does not indicate prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the output type without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or performance implications. The existence of an output schema is noted but not utilized in the description.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information about parameters and behavior, making it brief rather than effectively concise.

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?

Given the single parameter and existing output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation, especially with no parameter guidance and no usage context. It is barely adequate.

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 description does not elaborate on the 'agent_id' parameter, leaving its format or scope entirely undefined. The agent receives no help beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'full ancestry and descendants of an agent, plus its generation number,' which is specific and distinct from siblings like describe_agent or list_records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself within the text, relying on the sibling list for context.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('List'), but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or side effects. Minimal but adequate for a simple list tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and efficiently conveys the optional parameter information. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple structure (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It does not mention return format, but the output schema covers that. Missing pagination details slightly reduces completeness.

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 explain parameters. It adds meaning by noting the epoch parameter is optional and that 0 represents the founding cohort, which clarifies usage.

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 uses the verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'genesis records', which clearly states the tool's function. The mention of optional epoch filtering adds specificity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'lineage'.

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 for listing records, optionally filtered by epoch, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main effects (flags and quarantines transitive descendants) and output behavior (reports which agents were quarantined). However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or required permissions.

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 with zero waste. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action and key consequence.

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?

Given no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and an existing output schema (though not described), the description is too brief. It lacks enough detail for an agent to confidently use the tool without inferring parameter semantics and behaviors.

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 compensate, but it does not explain either parameter ('agent_id' or 'reason'). The default for 'reason' is not clarified, and the required 'agent_id' is not mentioned.

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 clearly states the action ('recall'), the resource ('agent'), and the effect ('flags it and quarantines every transitive descendant'). It also mentions reporting which agents were quarantined, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., describe_agent, lineage). No context is given about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the issuing of a genesis certificate, monotone indexing, idempotency, and the lineage/quarantine behavior. It could be improved by disclosing the return format (though output schema exists) or permission requirements, but overall it provides substantial behavioral 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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, lineage behavior, idempotency). No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and lineage implications but fails to describe artifact_hash or provide enough detail for a complete understanding of all inputs and outputs. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains agent_id implicitly and parent_id for lineage, but it does not mention the artifact_hash parameter at all. This leaves a significant gap in understanding a required (though optional default) input.

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 clearly states that the tool registers an agent's birth and issues a content-addressed genesis certificate, using specific terms like 'monotone index' and 'epoch 0'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_certificate' or 'lineage'.

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 mentions idempotency and lineage effects (quarantine propagation), which imply when parent_id should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_certificate' or 'describe_agent', nor does it provide prerequisites or context for when not to use it.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions recomputing the hash and checking the ledger, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies state, required permissions, or outcome details. It provides some transparency but not full coverage.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the key action. It could be expanded with a sentence about parameters or usage, but it is not bloated. Slightly under-specified but concise.

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?

The description lacks important context: parameter details, error handling, expected output (though output schema exists), and preconditions. For a verification tool with a complex parameter, this is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 compensate. It gives no information about the required 'certificate' parameter beyond its name, leaving the agent without guidance on structure or content. This is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'certificate', and elaborates that verification involves recomputing the content hash and checking the ledger. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_certificate or register_genesis, which perform different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_certificate). The description only states what the tool does, without advising on use cases or when not to use it.

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