get_design_ancestry

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the real constraint 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is useful, but it omits whether the walk is read-only, what happens at max_depth, output shape, or error behavior, and the 'would preserve this version so you can branch, restyle' sentence actively muddles what the tool does.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and clear, but two of the four lines are upsell copy and a pricing URL that add no invocation value and dilute the definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undescribed, an agent cannot predict return shape, depth semantics, or failure modes. The definition is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is only 50%: max_depth notes a default of 50 but recipe_path is undocumented. The description never explains the recipe path format, what a 'parent' edge represents, or what depth truncation means, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: walk the parent chain from a recipe back to the root. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as show_design_lineage, get_provenance_history, or show_branch_history, so the agent must guess which ancestry-type tool to call.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor preconditions beyond a paywall mention. The remaining prose ('branch, restyle, compare outcomes') describes unrelated workflows rather than when to invoke this tool.

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