lsp_outgoing_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a cached item ID and maps to a standard LSP method, implying it is a read-only operation. It does not mention behavior on invalid IDs or cache staleness, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It could enhance completeness by hinting at the return format (e.g., list of call locations), but given the LSP context, it is adequately complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that itemId comes from lsp_prepare_call_hierarchy, matching the schema. No additional semantic information is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 finds functions/methods called by a function or method using a cached call hierarchy item ID. It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_incoming_calls by explicitly mentioning outgoing calls and referencing the LSP method callHierarchy/outgoingCalls.

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 usage requires a prior call to lsp_prepare_call_hierarchy to obtain the item ID. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. lsp_incoming_calls, but the directionality is clear from the name and description. Context from sibling tools provides sufficient differentiation.

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