chimera_provenance_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions confidence aggregation and trace history, but fails to specify side effects (e.g., whether original envelopes are modified), idempotency, or error conditions.

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 that immediately conveys the core purpose. No filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details on merge strategies, return format, edge cases, and constraints, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 25%, most parameters (strategy, merge_value_mode, namespace) lack explanatory comments in both schema and description. The description only hints at envelopes; it does not define the merge strategies or the meaning of namespace.

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 action (merge), the resource (result envelopes), and the outcome (aggregated confidence and trace history). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on merging envelopes with provenance tracking.

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 other chimera tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives such as chimera_trace or chimera_summarize.

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