Get Ancestors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes the generation-numbering semantics (1 = parents, 2 = grandparents), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about whether omitting generations returns all depths, whether results are ordered, or how deep the traversal goes.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and spends the remainder on the one non-obvious semantic detail. Nothing redundant, nothing that restates the title.

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 lookup with an output schema and mostly documented parameters, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is what happens when generations is omitted or set to null (all ancestors vs. a default depth), which an agent needs before calling without that argument.

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 67%: tree and person_id are documented in-schema, but generations has no description at all. The description fills exactly that gap by explaining the generation index meaning, which the agent could not infer from the bare integer/null schema; it still leaves the null default behavior undefined.

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 ('List a person's ancestors') and defines the generation indexing scheme inline, so the agent knows exactly what shape of result to expect. It does not name the sibling get_descendants, which is the inverse operation, but the ancestor/descendant split is unambiguous from the names alone.

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 scope of use (fetching relatives upward from a person) is implied clearly by 'ancestors by generation,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_descendants, get_relationship, or get_person instead, and no stated prerequisites for choosing it over those siblings.

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