glyphdna_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Fetch' and 'public' imply a read-only, likely unauthenticated operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, output structure, or any limitations. It is minimally transparent but not contradictory.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation, the object, and the key argument without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and mentions script_id, but the formal schema omits script_id entirely and no output schema exists. For a no-annotation tool, this leaves some invocation ambiguity and gives no detail about the shape of ancestry/children results or failure conditions.

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 input schema is empty apart from additionalProperties:true, so the description's 'Args: script_id' is the only documentation that an argument exists. It names the parameter and clarifies that it identifies the script, though it does not specify type or requiredness. Given no formal schema params, this is reasonable compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names a precise resource ('public provenance chain of a script'), and expands on what that means ('ancestry + children'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like glyphdna_fork, glyphdna_verify, and glyphdna_network_status.

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?

Usage context is only implied: when you need a script's ancestry and children, this is the tool to use. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer under different conditions.

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