get_ancestors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the traversal is recursive and bounded by N generations; it does not disclose pagination, performance limits, or error behavior beyond what annotations and output schema imply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys purpose, traversal direction, and depth constraint efficiently.

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 an output schema and declarative annotations, the description covers the core operation and scope. It could be more complete by mentioning the file parameter or routing guidance against get_descendants, but those gaps are minor.

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 67%: id and file are described in the schema, but generations has no schema description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that generations controls depth ('up to N generations'), but it omits default (4) and maximum (10) details that an agent might need.

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 names a specific action (get ancestors) and resource (pedigree tree for an individual), and clarifies the traversal direction (father/mother recursively) and depth (up to N generations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_individual and get_descendants by scope and 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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_descendants or get_individual. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help an agent choose between siblings.

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