call_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the direction default and return content but does not explain required prerequisites (e.g., active LSP server), error behavior, or other constraints.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second adds detail on output, third provides usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded, each sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and direction but lacks parameter details and behavioral context. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for precise invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates only partly by explaining the 'direction' parameter and its default. It does not describe 'file_path', 'language_id', 'line', or 'column', leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the symbol position beyond schema types.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'call hierarchy for a symbol at a position', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_references' or 'type_hierarchy'. It explains the output (callers, callees, or both) based on direction.

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 guidance with 'Use this to understand code flow -- which functions call this function and which functions it calls.' This tells when to employ the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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