provenance__list_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List genesis records' with no mention of side effects, permissions, pagination, or data completeness. For a read operation, minimal disclosure is acceptable but still leaves 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 a single clear sentence. The leading bracket label '[provenance — genesis certificates, lineage, recalls]' adds minimal noise but does not detract from readability. It is appropriately concise.

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's simplicity (one optional param) and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and filtering. However, it omits details on return format or pagination, which may be needed for a complete understanding.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to the 'epoch' parameter by explaining its use as an optional filter and defining epoch 0 as founding cohort. This provides value beyond the schema's type definition, though it doesn't cover all possible values.

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 explicitly states the tool lists genesis records, a specific resource, and clarifies optional filtering by epoch with a special case for epoch 0. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like provenance__list_artifacts and provenance__lineage.

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 mentions optional epoch filtering but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other provenance tools. The context is implied by the resource name but not elaborated.

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