noark5_list_parents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that discovery is HATEOAS-based, follows N5TG-compliant link detection, handles over{xx} recursive relations, and returns all current parents with details. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure modes, but the 'list' intent and traversal details are conveyed clearly.

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 moderately detailed but every paragraph earns its place: core purpose, standards-based discovery, multi-parent caveats, then argument definition. The N5TG chapter references are slightly verbose, but they add grounding for the traversal behavior rather than being filler.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description covers the important edge cases: multiple parents, different parent types, recursive hierarchies, and returned fields (titles, types, URLs). It could additionally note authentication prerequisites or empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet only one parameter exists and the description fully compensates: it defines entity_url as 'the self-href URL of the entity to list parents for.' This adds material meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all parent entities of an entity using HATEOAS discovery.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling noark5_list_children, which handles the opposite direction, and from noark5_entity_links, which likely exposes raw link structures.

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 provides clear context for when it applies: when you need all current parents, including recursive hierarchies and entities that can have multiple simultaneous parents. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion/alternative routing that would earn a 5.

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