retrieve_field_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or what happens when parameters are omitted (both are optional). The description is too brief to be transparent.

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, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly terse for a tool with two optional parameters and no schema descriptions, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 a provenance chain, the lack of a output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the provenance chain contains (e.g., timestamps, sources) or how the tool handles missing parameters.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, it only mentions 'a specific field in an entity snapshot' without clarifying that entity_id identifies the snapshot and field is the field name. No types, formats, or examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'provenance chain for a specific field in an entity snapshot', distinguishing it from siblings like 'retrieve_entity_snapshot' which likely retrieves the entire snapshot. However, it lacks explicit definition of 'provenance chain' and does not differentiate from other retrieve tools in the same family.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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