Neotoma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieve' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 retrieving provenance chains, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or return values, making it incomplete for a tool with 2 undocumented parameters and no structured context.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'entity_id' or 'field' represent, their expected formats, or examples. Without this semantic information, users must guess parameter meanings, which is inadequate for effective use.

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 action ('retrieve') and target ('provenance chain for a specific field in an entity snapshot'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_entity_snapshot' or 'retrieve_graph_neighborhood', which might also involve entity data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'retrieve_entity_snapshot' for broader entity data or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving usage unclear.

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