groove_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers real value: 'Side effects: none; this is an offline deterministic read' plus an explicit redaction boundary ('raw notes, payloads, paths, and SQL are never returned'). It still omits the shape of what is returned and any auth/permission notes, so it is not complete.

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?

Four short labeled lines — purpose, side effects, example, edge cases — front-loaded with the purpose. Every line adds information and nothing is padded.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, redaction, and a call example, but leaves return shape and three of four parameters undocumented. Adequate but with material gaps.

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 coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only exercises artifact_id in the example. query_hash, schema_version, and especially include_projections (whose enum values drive the response) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (bounded provenance and projection evidence for one artifact), and the artifact_id pattern 'ga1_...' ties it to a concrete object. However, 'provenance and projection evidence' is jargon that an agent must infer means audit/traceability data, so it is clear but not maximally sharp against 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?

No when-to-use statement or relationship to alternatives (groove_generate, groove_compare, groove_apply, groove_search) is given. The only operational cue is 'offline deterministic read,' which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus another groove tool.

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