Resolve Data Lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: traversal is multi-hop with cycle detection. It still says nothing about result shape, depth limiting, or what happens on an unresolvable/cyclic graph.

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 tightly scoped sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the traversal characteristic follows. Nothing here is padding.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only traversal with no output schema, the agent still lacks any sense of what a resolved chain looks like or how a cycle is reported, which matters for a graph-walking tool. Safety is covered by annotations, but the return contract is a real gap.

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% and both parameters (derivativeId, maxDepth with default 10) are documented in the schema itself. The description's 'multi-hop' hints at the maxDepth dimension but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('full derivation chain for an artifact'), which is concrete enough to separate it from most siblings like resolve_authority or resolve_path_terms. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_rights_propagation, create_derivation_receipt, or compute_governance_taint, and no prerequisites are given. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the name.

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