show_design_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 usefully disclose the return format (Mermaid flowchart TD, with outcomes emphasized) and the Kiln Pro entitlement gate, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens at the max_commits boundary, and any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Only the first sentence serves the tool; the remaining three are upsell boilerplate ('would preserve this version so you can branch, restyle...', 'Requires Kiln Pro', an upgrade URL) that pads the definition without helping the agent invoke it.

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?

A three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover read-only semantics, param meaning, and alternatives; instead roughly half the text is marketing. An agent still cannot tell what artifact_id expects or what limits apply.

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?

The description never mentions any of the three parameters. With schema coverage at 67%, artifact_id is undocumented in both schema and description, and max_commits/annotate_outcomes only get one-word defaults from the schema; the description adds nothing about lineage depth or outcome annotation meaning.

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 (show the lineage of a design) and specifies the output artifact (a Mermaid ``flowchart TD``) with outcomes emphasized. That is concrete enough to separate it from generic readers, though it does not name which sibling (e.g. get_design_ancestry, show_branch_history, visualize_branch_tree) it replaces.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_design_ancestry, show_branch_history, or visualize_branch_tree, all of which appear to cover adjacent territory. The only stated condition is the paywall ('Requires Kiln Pro'), not the use case.

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