yaaif_agent_spec_release_provenance_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description names the provenance categories, but it does not mention authentication needs, pagination, return format, or whether empty results are possible. The 'immutable Scenario releases' detail adds useful context but is not a complete behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and the resource scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not describe the shape of the returned provenance data, pagination behavior, or any filtering options beyond the implicit spec_id. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the sole required parameter, spec_id. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the schema gap by specifying what kind of ID spec_id is or how it relates to 'Scenario releases'.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('build/test/artifact/SBOM/deployment provenance attached to immutable Scenario releases'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_release_provenance_record, which is about recording rather than listing provenance.

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 used when provenance for Scenario releases is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not mention that provenance can be recorded via a sibling tool or when listing would be inappropriate.

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