Describes the agent's provenance capabilities, including issuing genesis certificates, tracking lineage, and managing recalls.
[provenance — genesis certificates, lineage, recalls] Fleet-standard self-description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Input schema / titleAdded value: +"describe_agentArguments"v0.1.9Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"describe_agentArguments"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Input schema / titleAdded value: +"describe_agentArguments"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"describe_agentArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'self-description' but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or response behavior. For a simple describe tool, it is adequate but minimal.
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?
Extremely concise (one short sentence). Front-loaded with domain context. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Still appropriately sized.
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?
Despite simplicity, the description is vague ('Fleet-standard self-description') and does not specify what the output contains. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what to expect. Also fails to distinguish from sibling describe tools.
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?
No parameters exist in schema (0), so description adds no parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description states it's a 'self-description' tool for the provenance domain, but doesn't differentiate from many sibling describe_agent tools (e.g., neurogenesis__describe_agent, notary__describe_agent). The domain prefix provides some context, but the purpose is not fully distinctive.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple describe_agent siblings, the agent receives no criteria for choosing this one. The description lacks any contextual cues for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.