prompt_provenance_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the return values, including both success and failure structures. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The behavioral information is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 that conveys the action, schema version, and return structure. Every word is necessary and no fluff exists. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return values. It explains both success and failure outcomes. The only minor gap is that it does not mention that the tool only validates, not modifies, but the return structure implies no side effects.

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 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (document_json). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 (validate), the resource (Prompt Provenance JSON document), and the specific schema version (v0.1). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the schema version and the specific return structure, which is unique among validation siblings.

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 usage when needing to validate a Prompt Provenance document against the schema, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like prompt_provenance_inspect or eval_result. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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