get_breadcrumbs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about the path starting at the space root, but it does not disclose potential edge cases such as behavior for nonexistent page IDs or whether the page itself is included in the returned path. This is acceptable given the read-only, open-world hints, but the description carries only moderate additional value.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the core behavior and return value ('ancestor path'). The annotations cover safety and open-world assumptions. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact ordering of the path or whether the target page itself is included, but these are low-stakes for an agent invoking the 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?

The input schema documents page_id as 'Page UUID or slugId', which fully explains the parameter. With schema description coverage at 100%, the tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the semantic lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'ancestor path from space root to a page'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or list_child_pages, which address different page relationships. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the ancestor path or breadcrumb trail from the space root to a specific page is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Since no sibling tool directly competes with this function, the implicit guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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