get_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the content of the returned provenance record and asserts a completeness guarantee for byte-for-byte reproduction, which is a behavioral claim. However, it doesn't mention operational details like error handling, permissions, or the output format beyond naming RO-Crate.

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, well-structured sentence that uses a colon to introduce a list of specific provenance elements. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and output, with no filler or redundancy.

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, read-only tool, the description sufficiently defines the scope of the returned provenance and its purpose. It gives a detailed list of what the record contains, which is enough for an agent to select it. It lacks details on error scenarios or how the RO-Crate output is delivered, but these are not critical for tool selection given the simplicity.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the single run_id parameter, stating it is 'The run id returned by run_pipeline.' The description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets 'Workflow Run RO-Crate provenance' for a run, enumerating specific contents (workflow version, container digests, checksums). This specific resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run_status and get_results, which focus on status and outputs rather than full reproducibility metadata.

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 usage when a full record is needed to reproduce a run byte-for-byte, but it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like get_results or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is embedded in the phrase 'needed to reproduce the run byte-for-byte' but lacks explicit guidance.

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