Get the direct children of a haplogroup (for level-by-level traversal). Use limit for the N largest subclades only. 获取直接子节点（逐层遍历）；可用 limit 只看最大的 N 个分支。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Haplogroup name or hid / 单倍群名称或 hid | |
| limit | No | Return only the N largest children by size (default: all). / 只返回规模最大的 N 个直接子节点，默认全部 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: only direct children are returned, not the whole lineage, and limit filters to the largest subclades. It omits output-shape details, but for a read-style getter this is reasonably transparent.
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?
The English text is short, front-loaded, and states the core behavior before the limit tip. The bilingual Chinese repetition adds length without new information, but it is a consistent translation rather than padding.
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?
The tool is simple, both parameters are fully described, and the description covers the main behavior and the optional limit. It does not mention the return value shape, but 'get children' sufficiently implies a list for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the name-or-hid acceptance and the default-all behavior for limit. The description's mention of 'N largest subclades' reinforces the schema without adding new meaning.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the direct children of a haplogroup,' and clarifies the intended level-by-level traversal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subtree_haplogroups or list_haplogroups, which cover broader or different scopes.
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?
It clearly frames when to use the tool: for level-by-level traversal, and explicitly calls out the optional limit for restricting to the N largest subclades. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.