get_upstream_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool queries the Metadata API and returns dependencies, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, idempotency, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description is concise (two short paragraphs), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value (purpose, API, output format, edge case). No extraneous information.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it still explains the format and handles the empty case. Missing mention of prerequisites like content existence or permissions, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds context about querying the Metadata API but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves.

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 clearly states the tool lists upstream data sources (linhagem ascendente) and specifies the return format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_downstream_lineage by focusing on upstream dependencies.

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 implies usage for discovering data sources consumed by content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_downstream_lineage). No explicit when-not or prerequisites are provided.

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