get_ancestors

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

Annotations only say the call is read-only and closed-world; the description adds the substantive behavior that living/private ancestors are returned as redacted stubs unless include_private is set. That is real value beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about depth limits on the returned tree or performance.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core traversal purpose is front-loaded and the privacy caveat follows, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 read-only tree traversal with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the privacy caveat. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on when this tool is the right choice over the neighboring lookup tools.

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 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema already does the work. The description's privacy sentence corroborates the include_private semantics but adds no syntax, defaults, or bounds beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Walk a person's ancestors up to N generations') and even characterizes the return shape ('a nested parents tree'). The ancestor/descendant split makes it unambiguously distinct from get_descendants without naming it.

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 the traversal use case and clarifies the privacy condition, but never states when to prefer this over get_person, get_family, get_relationship, or get_descendants. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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