prompt_provenance_eval_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if permissions are needed, or what side effects (none expected) occur. The verb 'extract' implies a read but is not explicitly stated.

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, direct and without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of output schema and minimal schema coverage, the description does not provide enough context about what the extracted result looks like or how the document_json should be structured. Sibling tool names hint at domain but do not compensate.

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 schema has 50% description coverage: suite_name has a basic description ('Name of the evaluation suite to extract.') which adds some value, but document_json lacks any description. The description does not clarify the expected format (JSON string) or relationship between parameters.

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 'extract' and the resource 'evaluation suite's result', and specifies the source 'from a Prompt Provenance document'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like prompt_provenance_validate or prompt_provenance_inspect, which may have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, when it should not be used, or what conditions make it appropriate. Sibling tool names imply a broader suite but no explicit direction.

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