Get Parents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description repeats the read-only fact but also adds new context about result contents (parent entity name and link_type with allowed categories). This helps the agent anticipate the response shape even though there is no output schema. The description does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary behavior and then usage/alternative. Every sentence adds information; the only slight redundancy is the read-only statement, which is already in annotations, but it is short and does not bloat. Highly scannable.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return fields, and a usage trigger. It does not describe error cases or exact return shape beyond fields, but that is minor. One minor inconsistency: it references 'suggest_parents' while the sibling list contains 'suggest_metadata' – possibly a naming mismatch, but the tool itself is still callable 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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter 'path' as 'Relative path from OBSIDIAN_ROOT' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('parent links of one note from the graph index'), and enumerates the link_type values in the result. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_children, which would return the opposite direction. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly gives a use case ('understand where a note belongs before editing links') and names an alternative (suggest_parents) for the case where a note has no parents. It does not address all siblings, but the one likely-confusing alternative is covered. No exclusions beyond the suggested_difference, so a 4 is appropriate.

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