palinode_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' tag is redundant but consistent. The description adds value by revealing that rows with uncaptured provenance render an 'honest placeholder', a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, using a single comma-separated list to enumerate output components and a separate sentence for the placeholder behavior. It ends with 'Read-only' which is slightly redundant given annotations, but overall efficient and front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple parameter, absence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its behavior. The placeholder disclosure adds completeness. No missing critical information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'file_path'. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 composes the 'full provenance lineage' of a memory file, listing specific components (source citations, timestamps, supersession trail, contradiction/evidence links, recall count). This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like palinode_blame or palinode_history, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides clear context on what the tool outputs and implies its use for viewing comprehensive provenance. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the specific mention of 'provenance lineage' and components gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select it over siblings.

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