Get HPO Term Parents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which comprehensively cover the behavioral traits. The description adds that the tool returns 'direct is_a parents' and provides the function signature, but this adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what the annotations imply. The description does not contradict annotations, so no annotation contradiction is flagged.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a sibling reference and the function signature. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 (only 2 parameters, 1 required, an output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It covers the core functionality, distinguishes from a sibling, and provides the signature. No additional information about return values is needed because the output schema exists.

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% (both parameters are described in the schema with examples and enums). The description merely repeats the parameter names in a signature format without adding new semantic meaning. While it confirms the expected usage, the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately, placing the description at the baseline of 3.

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 begins by explicitly stating the tool's purpose: 'Return the direct is_a parents (immediate broader phenotype terms) of an HPO term.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('direct is_a parents'), and clarifies scope ('immediate', not transitive). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_term_ancestors by noting that the sibling provides the full transitive set.

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 provides clear guidance by stating 'Use get_term_ancestors for the full transitive set,' which directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over a closely related alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or address other siblings like get_term_children, though the context is fairly clear given the tool's focused purpose.

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