get_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output structure (observations with segment, terminal, timestamp, byte range) but does not state whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not explicit), what happens when no evidence is found, or any side effects. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'trace', but not stated. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The example clarifies intent without redundancy. It earns marks for efficiency, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the input options. Still, it is well within acceptable limits.

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 complexity of three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when both entity_id and finding_id are passed, or what the response structure will be beyond the mentioned fields. It also does not state any requirements or error behavior. An agent would lack the information to call this tool correctly without guessing.

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 only 33% (only 'engagement' has a description). The tool description does not clarify the roles of entity_id and finding_id, nor how they interact (e.g., is one required? can both be used?). It only mentions 'an entity or finding' without specifying that you must supply one. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about required parameters and their semantics.

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 states the verb 'trace' and the resource (fact/entity/finding), and describes the output (observations with segment, terminal, timestamp, byte range). It provides a concrete example question ('where did this credential come from'), which gives strong context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_entity or get_finding, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a usage scenario via the example question, implying an investigative need for provenance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_entity if you just need the entity itself'). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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