mujoco_get_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Source label is always sim' and clarifies that caller tags are metadata only, explaining what data is meaningful. It also enumerates the returned fields, giving the agent expectations beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core functionality. The additional sentences about source label and caller tags are directly relevant and not padding. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 existence of an output schema (which likely documents the return values), the description sufficiently summarizes the output content and nuances like source label and tag handling. However, the missing documentation of the session_id parameter leaves a minor gap in completeness, as the agent may not know how to construct a valid request without external context.

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 description does not mention the session_id parameter at all, and the schema provides no description (coverage 0%). The agent must infer that session_id refers to the simulation session from context clues, but the description fails to explicitly define its role or format, which is a significant gap for a required 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 states exactly what the tool returns: 'compiled-model SHA-256, engine/server versions, code hash and experiment config.' This clearly identifies the resource and action, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_state or model_info, which serve different 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving provenance of a compiled simulation, clearly differentiating it from state or control tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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