get_parents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON array of {iri, label, definition} summaries') and the compact nature of results, plus the constraint that iri is not a branch name. However, it does not mention error behaviors, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only semantics, which would make it a 5. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information: the IRI example, the branch-name exclusion, the depth default, and the pointer to get_concept. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema (implied by the description's return format), the description fully covers the needed context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, what the response looks like, and where to go for full details. This is complete for a read-only traversal tool.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains iri with an example IRI and the 'NOT a branch name' clarification, and it defines max_depth as 'Depth limit (default 1 for direct parents).' This adds significant value beyond the bare schema properties and default value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get parent concepts of a FOLIO concept.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_children and get_concept by focusing on parent traversal and compact summaries. The 'Returns compact summaries' line further differentiates it from get_concept's full details.

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 explicitly states 'NOT a branch name,' which prevents a common misuse. It also provides a direct alternative: 'Use get_concept(iri) for full details on a specific parent.' The context for max_depth ('default 1 for direct parents') tells the user how to control depth, giving clear usage guidance.

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