oss_lsp_call_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait — "L1 근거로 기록됨" reveals this call writes an evidence record, not just a pure read — which is valuable. However, it says nothing about required project scope, whether the symbol must already be indexed, or what the hierarchy output looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity and mode semantics, then positional detail — no filler sentences. The "Args:" block is a slightly awkward tail but is short and adds the 1-based indexing fact.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage is a heavy disclosure burden that this one-liner largely leaves unmet. The agent still doesn't know what comes back (a call tree? flat list?), whether it needs an indexed/inspected project first, or what path and project_id require.

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%, so the description must compensate. It covers the genuinely ambiguous parts: line/column are 1-based and point at the function-name position, and the meaning of direction's two values. It is silent on path and project_id, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names the specific resource (LSP callHierarchy) and disambiguates the two modes (incoming = who calls this, outgoing = what this calls). It doesn't contrast itself with the sibling oss_lsp_references, which is the closest alternative and the most likely source of mis-selection.

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?

"incoming(누가 부르나) / outgoing(무엇을 부르나)" effectively tells the agent which direction value to pick, which is genuine usage guidance for one parameter. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over oss_lsp_references or oss_lsp_definition, and no prerequisite or exclusion is given.

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