lineage_examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload's shape (question, graphql, variables, notes) and the optional category filter semantics. It doesn't note rate limits or auth needs, but those are largely irrelevant for a static read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the key instruction ('Read this before composing a graphql_query'), then the category list, then filter behavior, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described, yet the description summarizes the example fields. Combined with the enumerated categories and the when-to-use routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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% and the single `category` parameter is a bare string with no enum, so the schema gives an agent nothing. The description compensates fully by enumerating all eight valid values (impact, provenance, calc, datasource, search, inventory, governance, ownership) and explaining default behavior when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a schema cheat-sheet plus a library of curated lineage questions with their correct GraphQL queries and example variables. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like graphql_query and introspect_schema, which perform queries rather than supply ready-made examples.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance tied to a sibling: 'Read this before composing a `graphql_query`.' It also explains the filter behavior ('Pass one to filter; omit to get them all'). However, it never states when not to use it or lists alternative sibling tools for adjacent tasks.

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