kin_provenance_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral substance beyond that by disclosing the actual payload — change count, latest change, approvals, a newest-first page of changes, and recent audit events — which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core answer and then the usage cue. Slightly dense in the enumeration but no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain: no note on what happens with invalid/unknown entity_id or how approval status is represented.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (entity_id UUID, limit default/max/min). The description alludes to paging ('a page of changes newest first') but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — answering who changed an entity and whether it was approved — and enumerates the data returned. It is clearly a read-only provenance query rather than a mutation or graph traversal, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it supersedes (e.g., kin_artifact_read, impact_analysis).

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?

Provides one directive: 'Call it before relying on code whose history matters.' That gives a use context, but there are no exclusions, no prerequisites stated, and no named alternative for cases where history doesn't matter. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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