get_call_hierarchy_incoming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates and the prerequisite, but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or performance implications. The behavior is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is generally concise. However, the 'USAGE' and 'OUTPUT' lines in all caps add minor redundancy; a more streamlined version could improve clarity without losing information.

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 simple nature and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and prerequisites. It does not address edge cases or error scenarios, which could be beneficial but are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage context (position cursor on method name) and emphasizing zero-based coordinates, which supplements the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Find all callers of a method (incoming calls)', which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling tool 'get_call_hierarchy_outgoing' provides a clear contrast, so the differentiation is implicit and effective.

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 advises 'Useful for understanding who depends on a method before changing it' and states the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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