get_fact_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only and previews the return shape ('chronological revisions and rationale'). It stops short of disclosing depth limits, pagination, or behavior when a UUID has no lineage.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, usage triggers second, acquisition path and return preview last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, ID sourcing, and a rough return summary. Missing only finer return semantics — how revisions are ordered/truncated or what an empty chain looks like.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the exact UUID format and its source in 'search_memory'. The description restates that sourcing but adds no syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, 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 and resource — traces the evolutionary history and supersede chain of a fact — with the identifier type (UUID) named. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_current_state and search_memory, which deal with present state or lookup rather than lineage.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('auditing how or why a rule changed, or resolving conflicting facts') and a prerequisite path: obtain the UUID via 'search_memory'. It lacks an explicit when-not/negative case, but the positive routing is unambiguous.

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