Get Downstream Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readonly and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details: it requires a lineage cache, may fetch all workspace nodes on first call, deduplicates nodes, and returns depth levels. 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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured args, return format, and additional notes. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary information.

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 presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return structure (nodeID, nodeName, nodeType, depth), traversal behavior (full graph, no limit, deduplicated), and a notable side effect (caching requirement). It is complete for a graph-traversal tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with existing descriptions for workspaceID and nodeID. The description reiterates these parameters without adding new constraints, examples, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 walks the full downstream dependency graph and returns dependents with depth levels. The verb 'walk' and resource 'downstream dependency graph' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like get_upstream_nodes.

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 usage for tracing all downstream dependents with no depth limit, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives such as get_upstream_nodes or get_column_lineage. No when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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