Get asset lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing two important return behaviors: deleted or expired ancestors are retained as flagged tombstones, and never-captured inputs surface as external inputs — context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the edge-case semantics. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or restated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return graph and does so well (inputs, requests, characters, tombstones, external inputs). Annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gap: no note on graph size, performance cost of depth=5, or account-scoping effects, but nothing essential is missing.

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 asset_id, account, and depth are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `depth` bounds recursive traversal levels, but adds no new syntax or constraint detail (e.g. cost of higher depth) beyond the schema.

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 (get) and resource (derivation lineage of an asset) and then enumerates exactly what the graph contains: inputs, generation requests, referenced characters. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_asset or list_asset_characters, which return the asset or its characters rather than its derivation graph.

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 recursive, derivation-focused nature implies when to use it (tracing provenance upstream from an asset), and the `depth` mention hints at traversal control. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_asset for metadata only), so usage is only implied.

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