icf_get_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the return type ('parent code details and the relationship') and gives examples. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like when the code is a root category or invalid input. For a simple query tool, the transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, with three paragraphs: a one-sentence purpose, a brief explanation with examples, and a structured list of args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 has an output schema (not shown), so the description need not detail return values fully. It mentions 'parent code details and the relationship,' which is sufficient. However, it lacks information on error handling, behavior for codes at the top of the hierarchy, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is marginally complete but could be improved.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'code', and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose ('ICF code to find the parent of') and providing concrete examples ('e.g., "d450", "b2801"'). This goes beyond the bare schema definition of a string.

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 action: 'Get the parent category of an ICF code to navigate up the hierarchy.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the examples and mention of hierarchy set it apart from tools like icf_get_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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this to move from a specific code up to its broader category.' Examples illustrate the hierarchical movement. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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