mop_extract_family_network

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes kinship relationships and returns a dict of family relations structured by type, and 'extrahieren' implies a read-only operation. It does not cover edge cases like missing biograms or empty networks, but for a single-ID extraction this is reasonable.

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 well-structured with PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Args, and Returns sections, and the opening line is immediately informative. The three use-case bullets are somewhat redundant but do not waste more than a line, keeping the overall description compact.

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 simple single-parameter contract and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently scoped: it states input, purpose, and general return shape. It does not discuss error handling or the exact taxonomy of family relation types, but those details are likely covered by the output schema.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by clarifying that biogramm_id is the 'XML-ID des Biogramms' and that ctx is the FastMCP Context. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare string schema for the only required parameter.

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: 'Familiennetzwerk aus einem Biogramm extrahieren' (extract family network from a biogram). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mop_get_biogramm_by_id or mop_search_biogramme by emphasizing relationship extraction rather than fetching or searching the biogram itself.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists genealogical research, reconstructing court networks, and analyzing family dynasties at court. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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