get_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and predictability. The description adds useful behavioral context—it traces only internal provenance and explicitly avoids fetching external resources—which is a meaningful constraint beyond the annotations. This extra disclosure justifies a score above the baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the subject, and a key constraint efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for indicating what the tool returns. The current text focuses on the process (tracing) but does not describe the shape or format of the provenance result. Given the tool's potential complexity (depth, nodes, external leaves), this is a notable gap, though the description is otherwise adequate for a read-only operation.

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 100%, so every parameter (uri, maxDepth, maxNodes, includeExternal) is already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trace') and identifies the resource ('normalized source provenance') with a clear scope ('through internal concepts'). It distinguishes itself by noting 'without fetching external resources', which separates it from tools like read_git_source, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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 context by stating 'internal concepts' and 'without fetching external resources', which hints at when this tool is appropriate (e.g., wanting provenance without external data). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer routing from the sibling list.

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