inspect_data_lineage

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does add real scope information beyond the name by naming the artifact classes traced. However, it omits prerequisites (a workspace index likely must exist, given siblings like init_workspace and scan_workspace) and says nothing about whether results are static-analysis-based or exhaustive, or about read-only behavior, which is only implied by 'inspect'/'trace'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the traced artifacts come first. The 'Data lineage:' prefix is a mild label rather than added information, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

For a small two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately, and the absent return-value explanation is acceptable without an output schema. The main completeness gap is the unstated requirement that the workspace be indexed before lineage can be traced.

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 both tableName and workspacePath are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, casing, or qualification semantics for either. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (trace) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved for a given database table: SQL/ORM queries, source files, and functions. That artifact list distinguishes it in spirit from call-graph siblings like get_callers or get_call_chain, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Data lineage:' framing and the list of traced artifacts imply the situation (you want to know what touches a table), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative for forward-direction or symbol-level tracing. Usage must be inferred from the sentence.

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