get_type_hierarchy

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 important behavioral details: zero-based coordinates, two invocation modes, and the need to call load_project first. It does not mention potential errors or performance, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose sentence followed by short labeled sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description briefly covers return values: 'Superclasses, interfaces, and all subtypes.' It also mentions the maxDepth parameter. It lacks detail on error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only tool with good schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 two invocation modes (file position vs. type name) and emphasizing the zero-based coordinate requirement, which is not explicit in 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the type hierarchy (supertypes and subtypes) for a Java type.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (type hierarchy), and scope (Java type), distinguishing it from siblings like find_implementations (subtypes only) and analyze_type (broader type analysis).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'USAGE: Position on a type, returns full inheritance chain' and 'Can be called with either: ...' It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with specific alternatives, but the context is clear.

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