ListLineages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a query operation, but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise for a basic description, though it could be improved with more context. There's no structural issue with front-loading since it's just one sentence.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'data map entity lineage' means, how results are structured, or provide usage context compared to siblings. For a list/query tool with rich filtering options, more guidance on behavior and output is needed to be complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 '查询数据地图实体血缘列表' (Query data map entity lineage list) states the verb ('query') and resource ('data map entity lineage list'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'data map entity lineage' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ListLineageRelationships' or 'GetLineageRelationship', which appear related but have different names and potentially different functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ListLineageRelationships' and 'GetLineageRelationship' available, there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering capabilities, or output format. This leaves the agent without context for selecting the appropriate tool.

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