Get File Provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool shows the provenance chain and returns JSON, and explains the behavior of tracing back to original data, which adds value beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with headers for 'WHEN TO USE' and 'RELATED TOOLS', and it includes parameter descriptions. It is appropriately sized, with every sentence adding value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, parameters, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though more detail on the output format could be included.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description clarifies each parameter: 'file_path: Get provenance for a specific derived file' and 'source_accession: List all files derived from a specific ENCODE accession'. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks.

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's purpose: 'Get provenance information for derived files' and explains it traces the chain back to original ENCODE data including tools and parameters. It also references a related sibling tool, distinguishing it from others.

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 a 'WHEN TO USE' section and mentions a related tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives beyond one sibling. The distinction between the two parameters (file_path vs source_accession) is given in the parameter descriptions, but not in a clear usage scenario.

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