Get asset collection hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return shape (descendant subtree plus ancestors ordered top-down to the direct parent), which is important since no output schema exists. It does not mention recursion depth, empty-subtree behavior, or the account parameter's effect on scoping.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the primary result (the nested subtree) front-loaded and the secondary result (ancestors) following. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description carries most of the burden and does so by explaining exactly what comes back. It stops short of covering edge cases an agent might hit, such as depth limits, whether ancestors are returned when the collection is top-level, or how the account parameter scopes the lookup.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only indirectly indicates that collection_id is the subtree root. It adds nothing about how the account profile parameter affects which hierarchy is returned; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the hierarchy for an asset collection) and disambiguates the generic word 'hierarchy' by spelling out both the nested subtree and the ordered ancestor chain. An agent can distinguish this from get_asset_collection or list_asset_collections without opening any schema.

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 implies the use case (navigating up/down from a collection) but never explicitly says when to reach for this instead of get_asset_collection, list_asset_collections, or list_asset_collection_assets. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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