get_lineage_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that the summary is 'computed from raw lineage data' and exposes aggregate metrics, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as result shape, performance characteristics, or whether the summary is precomputed vs computed on demand. The description adds modest value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of contained values, then a brief provenance note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an existing output schema, the description is complete for invoking the tool. An agent can determine what the tool returns (summary metrics, breakdown, linked outcomes) and that it is a safe read operation. No critical information is missing for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The input schema has 100% coverage by nature of being empty. The description's mention of cohort-wide aggregation is consistent with the stateless 'across the cohort' nature of the call.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('lineage summary'), and a scope ('across the cohort'). It enumerates concrete contents (total lineages, workflow breakdown, average micro-eval metrics, outcomes linked), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_lineage_chain, which likely covers a single chain rather than an aggregate cohort summary.

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 phrase 'across the cohort' and nature of a summary imply aggregate use, and 'computed from raw lineage data' hints at a derived view. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lineage_chain, nor does it describe exclusions or cases where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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