list_confluence_page_ancestors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation and specifies the returned information (full ancestry path). However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, authorization requirements, or whether the result is returned as IDs, objects, or a path string.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core operation, and the second clarifies the exact shape of the result. It is well front-loaded.

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 simple, single-parameter read operation, the description is mostly complete. It names the input scope and the expected output. However, with no output schema, describing the response format in more detail (e.g., list of page IDs ordered root-first) would have made it fully unambiguous.

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%, and the pageId parameter is already described as 'The ID of the page to get ancestors for.' The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('parent hierarchy of a Confluence page'), and clarifies the exact return scope ('full ancestry path from root to the immediate parent'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_confluence_page_children, which serves the opposite direction.

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 implies the intended use case: when you need to know a page's ancestry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools like list_confluence_page_children or read_confluence_page.

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