Library lineage graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reiterates 'Read-only, offline' and adds scan scope (Recipes, Shaders, etc.) and output formats. It doesn't disclose more behavioral traits like performance limits or error handling, but with annotations present, the description adds moderate value.

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, information-packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by avoiding mild repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scanning scope, output formats, and key constraints (offline, read-only). It explains what the tool produces but lacks specifics on output structure; however, the formats are named.

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%; all parameters are described in the input schema with defaults, enums, and descriptions. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so 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 scans the vault library for lineage frontmatter and emits a lineage graph in multiple formats. The verb 'scans' and resource 'lineage graph' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on lineage extraction and graph generation.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only, offline tool' and 'No TouchDesigner connection required,' providing clear context for when to use it. It implies usage for lineage analysis but doesn't list alternatives or when-not-to-use; however, among siblings, no other tool serves this specific purpose.

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