whodb_platform_lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavior that a workspace override applies only to this call and leaves defaults untouched. It still says nothing about what the traversal returns, direction semantics, or depth defaults.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: purpose first, then the per-call targeting constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only graph tool the safety side is fully covered by annotations, and there is no output schema to explain. Still, direction and max_depth are left semantically vague (no defaults, no accepted values, no description of returned nodes/edges), which is a meaningful gap for a traversal 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the nested workspace object. The description only restates the workspace {host, org, project} shape and adds no meaning to root_id, root_type, direction, or max_depth beyond the schema's terse labels.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Return lineage around one root node") and scopes it to "the selected hosted project," so the agent knows it is a graph-traversal read. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as whodb_platform_lineage_neighbors, whodb_platform_lineage_providers, or whodb_platform_project_lineage, leaving the reader to infer the difference.

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?

It gives a usage hint that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change defaults, which implies this is the way to override project context transiently. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the lineage siblings, so the 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.