Get Node Lineage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (a list from the immediate parent to the root), which is genuinely useful, but it omits permissions, error behavior for an invalid/nonexistent UUID, and whether the queried node itself is included in the list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return shape. The closing 'useful for...' sentence is mild filler but does supply context, so it mostly earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return semantics. It leaves gaps an agent might care about: the size/pagination of the lineage list for deep trees and the fields present on each returned node.

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 single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond 'for a given phylogenetic node', so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the ancestral lineage... for a given phylogenetic node') and defines the result precisely as a parent chain up to the root. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_node (single node) and get_root_node, but never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Useful for understanding the taxonomic classification of an organism' gives a purpose but no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions. An agent must infer on its own that get_node should be used when only the node itself is needed, or search_taxa when starting from a name.

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