get_ancestry

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

The description discloses that it returns ancestors in a specific order and notes that part/section/appendix accept int or string, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. It does not discuss potential edge cases (e.g., conflicting inputs) or response size, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 description is three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, gives the return format, and adds usage context, all efficiently. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.

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?

Considering the tool has five optional parameters and an output schema, the description explains the main output (ancestor path) and type handling for three parameters. However, it omits details about date and title_number, which may be inferred but are not explicitly covered. Given the complexity, the description is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions that part/section/appendix accept both integer and string, but leaves date and title_number unexplained. This provides partial guidance but does not fully cover all five parameters, so the semantics are incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get the breadcrumb hierarchy path') and specifies the target resources (section, part, or appendix). It also outlines the returned hierarchy format (title > chapter > subchapter > part > subpart > section), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cfr_structure that likely return broader structural data.

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 provides a clear use case ('Understanding where a section sits in the CFR hierarchy and what regulation it belongs to') but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as get_cfr_structure or get_cfr_content. The intended context is clear, though explicit exclusions are absent.

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