get_call_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool is legacy and will be removed, but it does not mention permissions, destructive potential, rate limits, or return format. While the tool appears read-only, this is not explicitly stated, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 somewhat lengthy due to the deprecation notice and file reference, which takes space away from the core purpose. It is structured with a brief intro followed by an Args list, but the migration details could be condensed or moved to a notes section.

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 complexity of call graph traversal and the lack of schema descriptions, the description explains what the tool does and its parameters, but it omits details about the output format, error handling, or any limitations beyond 'beyond default limit'. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but more context would help.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section explains each parameter's role: function_name as the function to trace, file as an optional search scope, and project_path as the root path. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though the description could clarify that function_name is required.

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 that the tool traces function callers and callees through the codebase, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like `inspect` and `expand` by offering full call graph traversal beyond the default limit. However, the immediate deprecation notice and reference to replacements muddles the primary purpose slightly.

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 explicitly states that the tool is deprecated, replaced by `inspect(handle).edge_counts.callers` and `expand(handle, edge="callers")`, and advises preferring `lookup()` for general use. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, along with named alternatives.

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