lineage_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the effect of current_only (hiding atoms retired by a supersedes edge), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient to set expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and every clause adds value. The parenthetical list of output fields is efficient, and the current_only guidance is embedded concisely without fluff.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description does well to state the output fields and one parameter's behavior. However, the required app_id parameter is left unexplained, and there is no indication of what 'retired' means in practice or how results are ordered/grouped. This is adequate for a basic list tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for current_only (filtering retired atoms), but it does not explain the meaning of the required app_id parameter beyond the vague 'this willow' phrase. Since the required parameter is left unexplained and no schema description exists, this is a notable gap.

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 opens with 'List recorded lineage atoms', which uses a specific verb and resource, and it further specifies the output fields (id, title, whether current, tags) and the 'index of what parts of this willow have a recorded story' framing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lineage_record or lineage_link, which are likely write-oriented.

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 a concrete usage guideline: 'Pass current_only=True to hide atoms that a later `supersedes` edge has retired.' This tells when a particular option is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over sibling lineage tools or other list-style tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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