palinode_blame

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns which session or commit created each line, providing concrete behavioral detail. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. However, the first sentence is somewhat abstract; the second is concrete. Could be slightly more front-loaded, but overall concise and effective.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but omits details on output format (e.g., structure of blame lines). With no output schema, more specificity would aid the agent. However, the tool concept is familiar (like git blame), reducing the need for exhaustive detail.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., tracing facts) but does not enhance param understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool traces a fact back to when it was first recorded and shows which session or commit created each line in a memory file. This distinguishes it from siblings like palinode_history and palinode_trace, which focus on broader history or dependency tracing.

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 provenance investigation but does not explicitly specify when to use it, when not, or provide alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., palinode_history, palinode_trace), this lack of guidance is a gap.

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