whodb_platform_project_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's only added behavior note is that the workspace override does not change session defaults — useful, but this is already stated in the workspace schema description, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with the core action; nothing extraneous. The second sentence partially duplicates the workspace schema's 'Does not change the default host' text, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema and ten parameters, the description should carry more weight: it never says what 'lineage' returns (upstream/downstream nodes, edges, graph depth) or how filters like name/type/status/limit affect lineage traversal. It is adequate but leaves an agent unsure what output to expect.

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 (including the nested workspace object) are already documented, and baseline is 3. The description only restates the workspace {host, org, project} shape, adding no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return project-level lineage') and scopes it to 'the selected hosted project', which is more precise than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like whodb_platform_lineage or whodb_platform_lineage_neighbors, leaving the agent to guess which lineage scope applies.

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 second sentence explains the workspace override semantics ('per-call targeting without changing defaults'), which is implied usage guidance about defaults. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the lineage siblings, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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