get_agent_lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it filters to real invocations only, includes counts and last-use timestamps, and clarifies the semantic relationship to allowed_invoke_agents.

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 concise sentences fully convey the tool's purpose and differentiating context. The core action and result are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides sufficient operational context: what is returned, the invocation filter, the counts, and the last-use timestamp. There is no output schema, but the described shape is simple enough. It could be slightly richer by mentioning ordering or scope, but the essentials are present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; nothing about parameters is left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retorna pares orquestrador→subagente'), defining that it returns actual invocations via invoke_agent, with invocation count and last use. It explicitly differentiates itself from allowed_invoke_agents, so an agent can distinguish its purpose clearly.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for actual invocations, complementing allowed_invoke_agents (which expresses potential permission). This gives context on when to use it versus the conceptual alternative, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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