list_ancestors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about the 'generation' field and the depth limit, but does not mention error conditions, ordering, or whether the individual itself is included. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only necessary details. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the main behavioral nuance (generation field semantics) and the depth limit, making it reasonably complete for a simple list tool. Minor omissions like handling of non-existent individuals do not significantly detract.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining the 'generations' parameter ('up to ``generations`` levels') and implying 'individual_id' as the given individual. However, it does not elaborate on the ID format or other potential constraints, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 clearly states that the tool returns ancestors of a given individual, with the depth limited by the 'generations' parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_children and list_descendants by explicitly specifying the ancestor 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 usage for retrieving ancestors but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is a straightforward description without comparative context.

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