get_insight_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a citation with timestamps and evidence, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any prerequisites (e.g., insight must exist), potential side effects, or response format. This is insufficient for a safe and correct invocation.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and detail; it does not earn its place by providing sufficient information. While brevity is good, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'citation' or 'evidence', nor does it describe the return format or behavior. This leaves the agent without crucial context for proper use.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameter 'insight_id'. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. For a single required parameter, this is a critical omission.

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 'Get full citation with timestamps and evidence' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'citation' (provenance). It specifies what the tool returns (timestamps and evidence), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_insight_snapshot' or 'explain_anomaly'. However, it does not explicitly connect to the insight context implied by the name, leaving a small gap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to insights (e.g., 'get_cross_workspace_insights', 'search_research_history'), the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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