nifi_get_lineage

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: the backend is POST /provenance/lineage and the result is polled to completion, which tells the agent to expect latency and eventual completion rather than an instant response. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, followed by the operational note and the input rule. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The core gap is the undocumented `direction` parameter and the absence of any guidance on choosing among provenance-related siblings, leaving the definition only adequate for a graph-retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the flowfile_uuid/event_id relationship but leaves the `direction` parameter completely undefined — no hint that values like PARENTS exist or which are valid, and no enum is declared in the schema. Two of three parameters get partial treatment; the most semantically loaded one gets none.

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 and resource: it returns the lineage graph for a flowfile, described as nodes and links. That is clearly distinct from data-returning siblings like nifi_get_flowfile_content or filter-oriented ones like nifi_provenance_query, though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear but with no sibling differentiation in text.

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 line 'Supply either `flowfile_uuid` or `event_id`' gives an input-selection rule, which is useful constraint information. However, it says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus nifi_provenance_query or nifi_get_provenance_event, so usage context is only implied.

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