lspCallHierarchy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds useful context: requires lineHint (1-indexed), works cross-file, traces imports automatically, and is semantic. No contradictions. Could mention cost/expense in description itself, but schema covers that.

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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (when, prerequisite, fromTool, etc.) and front-loaded purpose. Every section adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisites, alternatives, flow patterns, gotchas, and examples. No gaps in understanding how the tool works or how to use it.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds examples and usage patterns but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Trace function call relationships [LOCAL: LSP]' and distinguishes between incoming/outgoing directions. It also includes a dedicated section comparing with sibling lspFindReferences, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios via <when> tags (e.g., 'Who calls this?' for incoming), prerequisite requirements (lineHint from localSearchCode), and alternatives (lspFindReferences for non-call usages). Also includes flow patterns and examples.

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