Get Object Parents

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying a read operation and hierarchical context. It doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'parents' means in practice (e.g., direct ancestors or all ancestors). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Get parent objects in a hierarchical object tree.' It's front-loaded with the core action and context, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly and efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral insights. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 100%, with the parameter 'object_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the format of object IDs or how they relate to the hierarchy. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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's purpose: 'Get parent objects in a hierarchical object tree.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('parent objects'), and the context ('hierarchical object tree') helps differentiate it from siblings like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_object_children'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing object ID, or compare it to related tools like 'dual_get_object_children' for navigating the hierarchy. Without this, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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