get_collection_ancestors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the result includes all ancestor collections, not just the immediate parent, and that they form a parent hierarchy. It does not disclose ordering, whether the collection itself is included, or the exact response shape, but for a read-only traversal this is a reasonable minimal disclosure.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool returns without extraneous phrasing. The parenthetical adds just enough scoping context.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity read operation with a fully described schema, the description gives an adequate idea of the result domain. It does not detail ordering or return formatting, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the missing details are unlikely to prevent correct selection or invocation.

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 100% and the only parameter is documented as 'The collection UUID'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline; no compensation is needed because the schema already explains the parameter fully.

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'), a clear resource ('ancestor collections'), and scopes it with 'all' and '(parent hierarchy)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection_subcollections, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or contrasting behaviors.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need the complete ancestor chain of a collection. However, it does not state when to prefer it over similar hierarchy tools such as get_collection_full_path or get_collection_subcollections, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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