call_hierarchy_incoming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only search and the scope 'all functions/methods', but it does not clarify whether results are direct callers only or transitive, nor describe the response shape. This is adequate but leaves ambiguity.

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 clear sentence with no filler. The core behavior and position constraint are front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a 3-parameter read-only navigation tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, without an output schema it does not explicitly state the return format or whether incoming calls are direct or recursive, leaving minor but real ambiguity.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the schema (file path, 1-indexed line, 1-indexed column), so the description adds little beyond tying them to the target position. Baseline 3 applies because schema description coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('functions/methods that call the function'), and a position constraint ('given position'). It clearly distinguishes this from call_hierarchy_outgoing by indicating incoming callers.

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 operation is self-describing: an agent needing callers of a function at a position can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like find_references or call_hierarchy_outgoing or state exclusions.

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