get_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the useful scoping phrase 'full lineage manifest', but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid paths or the completeness of lineage traversal. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, action first, and a concrete object. Every word contributes to telling the agent what the tool does.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is explicit parameter documentation, which is already reflected in the parameter_semantics score.

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 explicitly explain output_path. It only implies via 'MapSmith output dataset' that the parameter is a path to such a dataset. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate more directly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise object ('full lineage manifest of a MapSmith output dataset'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all spatial processing or server utilities.

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 makes clear that the tool is for retrieving provenance of a MapSmith output dataset, so the context of use is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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