get_entity_provenance

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation but fails to disclose behavioral traits like sorting, pagination (limit is only implied), or the structure of the returned history. The agent cannot infer important constraints.

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 very short, but it lacks necessary details. It is concise but under-specified, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 presence of many similar get_* sibling tools and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select this tool. It doesn't clarify what constitutes an 'entity' or differentiate from get_action_timeline.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the meaning of target_type, target_id, or limit beyond their names. Limit's default value is in schema but not stated in the description, and the agent may not understand valid values for target_type.

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 'Get action history for a specific entity' clearly states the tool retrieves action history. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_action_timeline or get_agent_activity, which may have overlapping purposes.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as valid types for target_type, or scenarios where other history tools are more appropriate.

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