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 full burden. It states the tool is a read-only action ('Find'), mentions zero-based coordinates as an important detail, and lists a prerequisite. However, it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, authorization needs, or output format details, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for usage, output, important note, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A minor improvement could be to integrate the usage hint more closely with parameters.

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 no output schema, the description only says 'List of methods that call this method' without detailing the format (e.g., method signatures, file locations). It does cover the prerequisite and coordinate system, but for a tool with 4 parameters and some complexity, more context on return values and output structure would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions zero-based coordinates, but this is already stated in the parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds all callers of a method (incoming calls), using verb 'Find' and resource 'callers of a method'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_call_hierarchy_outgoing' by specifying 'incoming calls'.

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 provides usage context: 'Position cursor on a method name' (though not exactly the parameters), 'Useful for understanding who depends on a method before changing it', and mentions prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_call_hierarchy_outgoing or find_references, but gives good situational guidance.

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