get_table_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the lineage is catalog-backed and stays within the tenant source boundary, which hint at safe, read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention permissions, edge cases, or what happens when no lineage exists, leaving some behavioral 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 entire description is a single focused sentence. It leads with the action and object, then adds a scope qualifier. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail – exactly the right size for a straightforward endpoint.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential usage context: no parameter semantics, no alternative routing, and no annotation safety signals. An agent cannot confidently infer how to construct a valid request or how this tool differs from related lineage tools. It feels incomplete for a tool with three required parameters and no schema documentation.

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 contains no parameter explanations. Parameters 'source', 'schema', and 'table' are only bare names; 'source' especially is ambiguous and could refer to a data source or lineage source. The description fails to clarify how these parameters should be populated or how they relate to the lineage lookup.

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 uses a specific verb with a precise object: 'Return catalog-backed upstream lineage.' It clearly communicates a read operation that yields upstream lineage data from the catalog, and 'within the tenant source boundary' adds a meaningful scope. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, 'catalog-backed' helps differentiate it from SQL-based lineage tools like analyze_sql_lineage.

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 gives no direct guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies lineage is read from the catalog rather than computed from SQL, but it never states exclusions or recommends another tool for SQL-based lineage. The tenant boundary qualifier is a constraint, not a usage rule.

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