lineage_why

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns: rationale, origin, authority, evidence, and typed edges (supersedes, derived_from, motivated), plus a synthesized plain-language answer. It also indicates the input can be a slug id or free text. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none) or error conditions, though the tool appears read-only.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the input and output, and the third gives usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy beyond the useful 'lineage, not a blob' emphasis.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the return structure and the synthesized answer. It also clarifies the input. The only completeness gap is the unexplained 'app_id' parameter, which might be a common scoping parameter across the sibling tools. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter with 'Give a slug id or free text,' but it does not explain the 'app_id' parameter at all. Since 'app_id' is required and not self-explanatory, the description fills only half the gap, leaving the agent potentially unsure about how app_id scopes the query.

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: 'Answer "why does X exist / where did X come from" from recorded lineage.' It specifies the verb 'answer' and the resource 'lineage,' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rationale, origin, authority, and evidence, rather than just listing or recording 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 provides clear usage context with the phrase 'This is the verb a curious agent runs before acting on something it didn't build.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, such as lineage_list or lineage_record, so it stops short of a full 5.

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