get_cognitive_provenance

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'get' implying read-only but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the chain is ordered, if it includes metadata, or any side effects. Insufficient for understanding invocation trade-offs.

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?

Single sentence that directly conveys the primary purpose. Concise and front-loaded, though could include a bit more context without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully inform the AI agent about the return value (e.g., format of provenance chain) or constraints (e.g., maxDepth limit). Lacks completeness for practical 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (id, type, maxDepth). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'cognitive provenance chain', clearly indicating it retrieves the provenance chain for a task or thought. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools that retrieve individual entities like get_task or get_thought.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_task or get_thought, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description lacks context for choosing this over alternatives.

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