get_provenance_tool

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. The verb 'Get' and 'Shows' clearly indicate a read-only operation, and the description lists the types of events included in the history, giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, but the language is sufficient.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the main action ('Get the provenance DAG summary'), followed by a concise explanation of what it shows. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only guide. It clearly explains the purpose and content of the returned history, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. However, it does not describe the structure of the DAG summary or the exact return format, which could be a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'for a project's synthesis theory,' providing context that projectId refers to the project of interest. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's type and required status. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 retrieves a provenance DAG summary for a project's synthesis theory and enumerates the specific history it shows (expansions, contractions, revisions, evidence storage events). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_theory_snapshot_tool or why_believe_tool, which focus on current state or reasoning.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the history of belief revision operations for a project's synthesis theory. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_theory_snapshot_tool likely serve a different purpose, but this is not stated.

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