project_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only aggregation of two lists but does not state permissions, side effects, rate limits, or return format, leaving key safety and operational traits undisclosed.

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 compact line that front-loads the key composition and returned entities. The 'Extended:' prefix is slightly cryptic but does not detract significantly from the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

For a simple aggregate-list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description states what is returned but omits return structure, pagination, and read-only status. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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%, with the single parameter (managerBcId) already documented as 'Project/root bc id.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 defines project lineage as the union of two specific list operations and enumerates the returned entity types (workers, side chats, subagents). While it relies on internal function names rather than a clean verb+resource phrase, the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling listing tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_agents or start_side_chat. The implied usage is to retrieve a comprehensive project lineage, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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