implicit_get_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned data is immutable and the call neither executes an agent nor loads state, which is meaningful behavioral disclosure for an agent choosing between read and execute paths.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the negative scoping clause. The stacked noun phrase 'address/source version/hash and materialization hashes' is dense but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the returned fields at a high level, which is helpful. However, with two undocumented required parameters and no return structure detail, an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently.

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% for both required parameters, and the description never explains what a 'coordinate' is, its valid range, or the universe_id format. The phrase 'addressed experience' faintly gestures at the coordinate concept but adds no usable meaning over the schema.

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 (Read) and a well-defined resource (immutable address/source version/hash and materialization hashes for an addressed experience). It differentiates itself from sibling mutation tools via the negative clause about not executing an agent or loading state, though it doesn't name a specific sibling to compare against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'Does not execute an agent or load state' clause hints this is the safe metadata-only read versus implicit_materialize or implicit_inspect_state, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given.

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