bw_dataflow_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the result format is (e.g., a list, graph, JSON), or any potential side effects or cost. The agent has no clue about the return structure or performance implications, which is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence with an embedded example, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. However, it omits important behavioral context that could have been added without bloating the text, so it loses a point for under-specification.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the return format, pagination, error conditions, or when to use outputPath. For an agent to call this correctly, it needs more information about what the result looks like and how to interpret it.

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%, so source and target are documented as 'Source object name' and 'Target object name'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the linking concept but provides no additional syntax, format, or context for parameters like targetType. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles semantics.

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 clear purpose: 'Find transformations and DTPs linking a source object to a target object' with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bw_adso_transformations (which likely lists all transformations for a single ADSO) by explicitly focusing on source-to-target lineage pairs. The verb 'find' and resource 'transformations and DTPs' are specific.

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 versus alternatives such as bw_adso_transformations or bw_adso_dtps. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or typical scenarios beyond the example. The agent must infer usage from the sibling names and context.

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