hyperspace_get_concept_parents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose that this is a retrieval operation returning a JSON list of parent nodes. It does not explain traversal behavior, ordering, error cases, or how the layer and limit parameters affect results.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The sentence about required parameters is slightly redundant with the schema but still useful and not verbose.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required inputs and return type. However, it does not explain the optional layer and limit semantics or edge cases, leaving some behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description names the two required parameters but adds no extra semantics for layer or limit beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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: retrieve parent concepts in a hierarchical collection. It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as get_neighbors or get_subsumption_tree.

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 states the required parameters, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related graph tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or usage conditions beyond the basic purpose.

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