get_call_hierarchy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior on ambiguous symbol input (returns error listing candidates), the two targeting methods, and direction semantics. Read-only nature is implied by the operation name ('get') but not explicitly stated; overall adequate for a query tool.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose, then explain direction and targeting alternatives. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Concise yet complete.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers core functionality well. It explains both targeting methods, direction, and error behavior. Lacks a brief note on return structure (e.g., list of call sites) but not critical given the schema detail.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema: explains preferred targeting (symbol), qualification format for disambiguation, combination with file, and error behavior on ambiguity. This guidance meaningfully helps the agent select parameters correctly.

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 'Get call hierarchy for a function/method' with specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_references or get_type_hierarchy by focusing on call relationships and 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 clear guidance on when to use 'symbol' vs 'file/line/column' targeting, states symbol is preferred, and explains how to combine with 'file' to restrict search. Does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., vs get_references) but gives sufficient context for correct invocation.

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