Get Page Ancestors

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as ordering, inclusion of the page itself, or response shape. It merely restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args:' section redundantly restates the schema, which does not earn its place. The purpose sentence is clear and concise.

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 output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, whether the result is ordered, or how the ancestor list is structured, making it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must provide meaning for the page_id parameter. It only repeats the parameter name ('Page ID') without explaining the expected format, how to obtain it, or any relationship to other IDs. This adds no value beyond the schema's field name.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ancestor pages' with the clarifying phrase 'breadcrumb trail'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_descendants or get_page_children.

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 use case of retrieving ancestor pages for breadcrumb navigation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The reader must infer usage from the purpose.

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