get_provenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the query is not executed, which is a crucial safety trait for an AI agent to know. It also uses 'preview' to imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, though it doesn't elaborate on permissions or the nature of the classification.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 only two parameters, the description covers the primary purpose and key behavioral trait. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool relates to siblings like explain_sql or validate_sql, and the 0% schema coverage leaves a gap in understanding parameter usage. It is minimally adequate but not rich enough for a novel 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details beyond the tool's general purpose. While 'sql' is self-explanatory, 'max_rows' is not described, and the description fails to explain how parameters affect the preview, leaving the agent to guess or inspect schema properties without semantic guidance.

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 'previews provenance classification for a query without executing it,' providing a specific verb (preview), resource (provenance classification), and a key distinguishing scope (without executing). This differentiates it from sibling tools like query_sql and explain_sql.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies the tool is for safe, non-executing analysis, establishing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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