get_etl_table_lineage

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It indicates the return content (producer-owned lineage edges, capability boundaries) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, what 'producer-owned' means, or what 'capability boundaries' entail. The output schema exists, but behavior is under-described.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase ('producer-owned', 'ETL lineage edges', 'capability boundaries') contributes 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?

For a tool with no annotations and one un-documented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know what 'producer-owned' means, why this differs from get_table_lineage, and what 'capability boundaries' refers to. The output schema covers return values, but usage context is missing.

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 0% and the description does not explain the lone table parameter. It only reuses the word 'table' from the schema property name, adding no meaning about expected format, ownership scope, or relationship to ETL pipelines.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('ETL lineage edges and capability boundaries'), and includes the scoping qualifier 'producer-owned' which distinguishes it from the sibling get_table_lineage. However, 'capability boundaries' is jargon that is not explained, and the short phrase doesn't fully disambiguate from closely related lineage tools.

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 is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_table_lineage, get_etl_pipeline, or get_etl_pipeline_dependencies. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts.

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