get_call_hierarchy_outgoing

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: zero-based coordinates and the need for load_project. It also describes the output type. However, it omits potential error conditions or limitations.

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 with clear sections: USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only analysis tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, coordinate system, and output. It's adequate but could mention error handling or edge cases for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by reinforcing zero-based coordinates and linking parameters to cursor positioning on a method name, providing context beyond the schema's 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 clearly states 'Find all methods called by a method (outgoing calls)', specifying a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_call_hierarchy_incoming' by terminology and context.

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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'Position cursor on a method name' and a prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools, the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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