get_parent_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (id/name/type per level), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering (root-first vs node-first), root/termination behavior, or how the optional depth/stop parameters alter traversal.

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 zero waste, and the core action and return value lead. It is arguably under-sized for three undocumented parameters, which slightly undercuts 'appropriately sized'.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only carrier of behavioral meaning and it stops at one sentence. It omits traversal order, termination conditions, and the role of maxDepth/stopAtId, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0% and two of three parameters (maxDepth, stopAtId) have non-obvious names that the description never explains. Only nodeId is implicitly covered by 'of a node', leaving the depth-limit and stop-node semantics undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('walk up the parent chain of a node') and even states what is returned (id/name/type at each level). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts itself against ancestry-adjacent siblings like get_node_info or get_document_tree.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent gets no help deciding between this and the many other node-reading tools such as get_node_info or get_selection_context.

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