get_candidate_lineage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the traversal order ('self first') and the returned structure, implying a safe read. It says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent candidate, depth limits, or permissions, which for a graph-walk tool is a meaningful gap.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical '(self first)' is a precise, load-bearing detail about traversal order.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and traversal order adequately; return values need not be explained. The only shortfall is the absence of any usage routing versus siblings like get_candidate.

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%, and the single parameter's schema text ('Candidate whose parent chain to walk to genesis') mirrors the description's wording. The description adds no format, ID scheme, or validation semantics beyond the schema, so the 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: 'Walk a candidate's parent chain to genesis (self first)'. This clearly separates it from get_candidate or list_candidates, which deal with a single candidate or a collection rather than ancestry. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'the full ancestry that any result attributed to this candidate inherits' — an agent can infer this is for tracing provenance/inheritance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g., get_candidate for the candidate itself).

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