why_believe_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list of evidence IDs that ground/support an assertion, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for missing/invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent assertionId), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and provide the key return value. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple two-parameter signature and lack of output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the return value (list of evidence IDs) and the core behavior. However, it omits details about project scoping, error cases, and how this tool differs from similar siblings, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It only implicitly clarifies assertionId as 'a given assertion' and says nothing about projectId's role or acceptable formats. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and populate both required parameters.

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 specific verbs ('Trace', 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource as the evidence chain for an assertion. It also includes the 'why do we believe this?' framing, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool get_provenance_tool, so it misses the full top score.

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 when one needs to understand the evidentiary basis of an assertion, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as get_provenance_tool or belief_stability_tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison to related tools.

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