provenance__describe_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fleet-standard self-description' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., read-only). A describe tool is likely safe, but the description does not confirm this, leaving a gap.

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 extremely concise (single line) and front-loaded with the bracketed domain context. Every part adds value, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 is simple (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It provides the domain and purpose, but does not explain what information the self-description includes (e.g., version, capabilities). For a self-description tool, slightly more completeness would help an agent understand what to expect.

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 input schema has zero parameters and coverage is 100%. No parameter documentation is needed. Based on the rule, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool as a self-description for the provenance agent, with the bracket prefix specifying the domain (genesis certificates, lineage, recalls). This is sufficient to distinguish it from many sibling describe_agent tools, but it lacks a verb like 'describe' or 'return' and could be more explicit about the output.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The bracket prefix implies the provenance domain, which helps differentiation from other describe_agent tools, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The guidance is implicit at best.

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