personal_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies that the result is raw source text rather than the node, but it does not state read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or pagination/limits. The disclosure is 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?

The description is a single compact sentence and front-loads the core resource. However, conciseness is achieved at the expense of essential parameter context, and the unexplained 'F1' reduces clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description fails to define the required parameter or the optional flag, and the cryptic 'F1' leaves a gap. For a simple provenance lookup this is incomplete but not entirely unusable.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain 'id' or 'only_len'. An agent cannot determine what 'id' refers to or what 'only_len' controls without external context, and the cryptic '(F1)' adds no parameter meaning.

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 names the resource ('documentos de los que salió un nodo') and the output ('el texto crudo asociado'), and explicitly contrasts with the bare node, helping distinguish it from personal_get_node. However, it lacks an explicit verb and the 'F1' qualifier is unexplained.

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 phrase 'no el nodo pelado' implies this tool should be used when source/provenance documents are needed rather than node retrieval, but it does not name sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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