resolve_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions 'multi-hop with cycle detection,' which adds insight into the traversal behavior and safety against cycles. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens when a cycle is detected (e.g., error vs. truncation), or what the response format looks like. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 two sentences, immediately states the core function, and avoids unnecessary filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'full derivation chain' defines scope, 'multi-hop' and 'cycle detection' add behavioral insight. This is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain return values and side effects. It does not describe what the resolved chain looks like (e.g., a list of nodes, path, metadata) or behavior on cycles. The tool has moderate complexity (multi-hop traversal), and the description leaves some gaps, though it is sufficient for a basic understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the required derivativeId or the optional maxDepth. The schema already explains maxDepth's default, so the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance understanding.

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 resolves the full derivation chain for an artifact, using the specific verb 'resolve' with a clear resource ('derivation chain'). It conveys a read/trace function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_artifact_provenance and create_derivation_receipt, which are creation operations. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or emphasize that it is a query operation, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to trace the complete lineage of an artifact. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the wording 'full derivation chain' and 'multi-hop' conveys the intended scenario clearly. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, which would warrant a 5, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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