get_family

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a content summary (spouses, children, marriage events) but does not add behavioral details beyond that; output schema covers return values.

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?

Single compact sentence front-loads the resource and its contents. No waste, though it is a noun fragment rather than a full sentence.

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 output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention that id must reference a family record and that file is optional, but core completeness is high for a simple getter.

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%, with both id and file documented. The description only notes the @F..@ id format, which is redundant with the schema pattern/example, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (family record), its GEDCOM identifier format (@F..@), and the contents (spouses, children, marriage and other family events). Distinguishes from get_individual and get_source by family scope, though it omits an explicit retrieval verb.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus get_individual, get_ancestors, or search_individuals. The context is inferable from the name and siblings, but no when-to-use or alternative guidance is stated.

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