lineage-impact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses default depths (3 down, 1 up), optional owner resolution, and that it renders an Apps SDK card on ChatGPT clients. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the aggregation behavior is well described.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. First sentence summarizes the aggregation. Second answers the core question. Third mentions a client-specific rendering. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 explains the output conceptually (counts, breakdown, top consumers, owners). It covers default behavior and optional parameters. Could detail the output structure more, but it's sufficient for an impact 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 coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal. The tool description adds meaning: it explains default depths (3 down, max 5; 1 up, max 3), the purpose of includeOwners for change notifications, and topConsumersLimit for surfacing high-degree entities. This adds value 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?

The description precisely states 'aggregated downstream impact analysis', walks lineage, counts consumers, breaks down by entity type, surfaces top consumers, and resolves owners. It clearly answers 'who/what breaks if I change X?', differentiating it from the raw lineage tool get-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 explains that this tool replaces recursive get-lineage walks for impact analysis, providing a one-call solution. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the differentiation from sibling get-lineage is clear, and the use case is well-defined.

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