whodb_platform_lineage_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance — that the workspace argument targets a single call 'without changing defaults' — which clarifies non-mutating semantics of session state.

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 operation and resource, then the targeting caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is only marginally informative given the schema already documents workspace.

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 list tool with no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and targeting adequately. It does not address return shape, pagination behavior of the limit/offset pair, or its relationship to sibling lineage tools, leaving some gaps for a tool with ten filters.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the nested workspace object. The description restates the workspace shape but adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 — 'List OpenLineage providers' — scoped to the 'selected project', so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the numerous lineage siblings (whodb_platform_lineage, whodb_platform_lineage_neighbors, whodb_platform_project_lineage), so the boundary must be inferred.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the other lineage-related tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage-adjacent content is the workspace targeting note, which is about how to target, not when to use.

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