get_case_ancestors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads ancestor hierarchy and returns basic info with links, which is adequate for a read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or authorization constraints (though these are implied in the input schema).

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding specific detail in the second sentence. No superfluous words.

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?

The tool is simple (get ancestor hierarchy) and the description explains the return content (basic info + HATEOAS links). Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. The input schema covers parameters completely.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema (e.g., 'for the case ID passed in'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the meaning.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves ancestor case hierarchy for a specific case, specifying it returns parent-child relationships and basic case info with HATEOAS links. This differentiates it from siblings like get_case_descendants and get_related_cases.

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 usage for retrieving hierarchical ancestors but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context compared to other hierarchy tools.

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