get_call_hierarchy_outgoing

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait of zero-based coordinates and the prerequisite. However, it does not mention error handling, performance limits, or any side effects. This is adequate 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 very concise: 5 short lines with clear structure. Purpose first, then usage, output, important note, and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 complexity (dependency hierarchy) and lack of output schema, the description could detail the output format more explicitly. It says 'List of methods' but doesn't specify if they include file paths or line numbers. Sibling tools and similar tasks often need more detail. Adequate but incomplete.

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% with descriptions already stating 'Zero-based column number' and 'Zero-based line number'. The description reiterates zero-based coordinates but adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'methods called by a method (outgoing calls)'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_call_hierarchy_incoming' which finds incoming calls. The usage context (position cursor on a method name) further clarifies its specific purpose.

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?

Explicit usage instruction: 'Position cursor on a method name' and prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first'. It also explains usefulness for understanding dependencies. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide direct comparison with alternatives.

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