get_provenance

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds a key behavioral trait: it does not fetch external resources, which is valuable context. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, directly worded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function and key constraint. It is well front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 read-only trace tool with a well-documented schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It communicates the essential scope and external-fetch behavior, though it could optionally mention the return shape, but this is not critical given no output schema is present.

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 covers all four parameters with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Trace' and names the resource 'normalized source provenance', making the tool's purpose clear. It also mentions 'through internal concepts' and 'without fetching external resources', which hints at its scope relative to external-fetching tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for tracing provenance within the internal concept graph without external fetches, which gives context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_graph or inspect_attested_computation, nor does it state when not to use it.

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