Library lineage graph

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

The description adds value beyond the existing annotations by noting the tool is offline, requires no TouchDesigner connection, and lists the specific frontmatter fields it extracts. It also mentions output formats, which the annotations do not cover. Although the return structure is not detailed, the read-only nature is both annotated and described consistently, and the added context raises it above a mere annotation repeat.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence, then elaborating with output formats and the offline/no-connection detail. No words are wasted, and the structure flows logically from what it does to how it outputs.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview: it covers the scanned sources, extracted fields, output formats, and the offline nature. However, it does not describe the expected graph structure (nodes/edges) or the safety cap (max_nodes) in the description, leaving some context for the user to infer. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for parameters by listing the categories (kinds) and output formats, but it does not add meaning for max_nodes, cluster_by, vault_path, or include_orphans. The schema already provides adequate descriptions for all parameters, so the description provides only marginal additional 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it scans the vault library, extracts lineage frontmatter, and emits a lineage graph. It specifies the resource (Recipes, Shaders, Presets, Components, Setlists) and the output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_recipes or browse_library that do not provide lineage graph analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is read-only, offline, and requires no TouchDesigner connection. It implies usage for analyzing lineage/dependencies among library assets, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Thus, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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