akb_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses the return categories and scoping ('visible same-vault relations'), but does not clarify whether the operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what the response format looks like. 'Get' implies a read operation, which mitigates some of the ambiguity.

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 front-loads the core action and then efficiently enumerates the returned data. Every clause contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope well. It could be more complete by stating explicit use alternatives or permission implications, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents the only parameter 'uri' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail about URI format, required scheme, or accepted value patterns beyond what the schema provides.

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 provides a clear active verb ('Get') and resource ('document'), and enumerates the specific provenance information returned: creator, timestamp, extracted entities, and visible same-vault relations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to contrast against, but the described content is specific enough to differentiate it from generic retrieval tools like akb_get, akb_relations, or akb_history.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need provenance metadata for a document. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions.

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