memory_provenance

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it is read-only and returns creation details, conversation, agent, and modification history. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get the full provenance chain.'

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (provenance chain), the description adequately outlines what is returned but does not detail the structure of the chain. With no output schema, a bit more structure detail could help, but overall it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100% of parameters, each with a description. The tool description adds context by explaining what the parameter 'observation_id' is used for (tracing provenance), but does not provide additional value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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's purpose: 'Get the full provenance chain for a memory observation.' It specifies the resource (memory observation) and the action (trace provenance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_audit or memory_context by detailing what it shows (creation, conversation, agent, modifications).

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 implicitly indicates usage when provenance information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_audit or memory_recall. No when-not-to-use or conditional guidance is provided.

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