get_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' a record, implying a read operation, but gives no details on output format, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or what constitutes a 'complete provenance record'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavior beyond a simple fetch.

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 with no fluff, which is appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified—its brevity comes at the cost of critical context. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it arguably too short for the tool's 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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'provenance record' entails and how it differs from related tools like get_history or get_revision. It does neither, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of what it will receive or when to use it. This is inadequate for a tool that overlaps with several siblings.

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 describes a single required parameter 'change_id' with type string, but provides no explanation or format. The description does not add any meaning to this parameter—it does not clarify that this is the identifier of the Change Request, its format, or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Change Request') along with the specific aspect ('complete provenance record'), which is clear and distinct from a generic 'get_change' or 'get_history'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_revision', so it leaves some ambiguity about what 'provenance' specifically includes.

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. With siblings like get_history, get_revision, and get_diff, an agent has no way to know which to select without additional information. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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