callHierarchy

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the limitation 'single-level' and the scope 'incoming/outgoing', which are important behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a read-only hierarchy tool this is largely sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core function. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity, an output schema, and the description covering purpose and limitations, it is largely complete. It lacks explicit usage alternatives and deeper parameter definitions, but these are not critical for a low-complexity read tool.

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 must compensate. It contextualizes `symbol` as the target and `repo` as the container, giving basic meaning, but does not define what constitutes a valid symbol or repository. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 the tool returns a single-level call hierarchy (incoming/outgoing) for a named symbol in a repo, using the specific resource and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like findReferences and typeHierarchy, which serve different code navigation purposes.

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 implies usage when a call relationship view is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., findReferences) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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