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 behavioral burden. It indicates a read-style operation returning a complete record, but it does not disclose response format, failure behavior, required permissions, limits, or whether anything else is returned along with the provenance.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler. The resource and action are front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately apparent.

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 one-parameter lookup, this is close to minimally viable, but it lacks return-value expectations, error behavior, and any disambiguation from the many related read/history tools. The absence of an output schema makes this vagueness more costly.

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 should compensate by explaining the change_id parameter, but it does not directly address the parameter. It indirectly relates the tool to a Change Request, yet it never says how to supply the ID, what format it should take, or where to obtain it.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: get a provenance record for a Change Request. The term 'provenance' is unique among the sibling tools and distinct from get_change, get_history, get_revision, and get_diff, so an agent can reasonably tell this tool apart.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool instead of related read operations such as get_history, get_diff, or get_change. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'get provenance record,' with no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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