roslyn:get_outgoing_calls

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

The description discloses that coordinates are zero-based (a critical behavioral detail), and that it returns a list of called symbols with locations. Despite no annotations, this provides good transparency, though it omits specifics like handling of async methods or lambdas.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a critical note. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the tool's purpose, the second adds context about return values, and the note warns about coordinate systems.

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 adequately explains that the tool returns a list of called symbols with locations and warns about zero-based coordinates. However, it could benefit from specifying the structure of each returned symbol (e.g., name, kind, exact position).

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 already fully documents all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how the coordinates relate to the method's body or how maxDepth affects results.

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 it retrieves methods and properties called by a method, using specific verbs ('Get all methods and properties that a method calls'). It distinguishes from siblings like find_callers (which finds callers) and dependency_graph (broader scope), by focusing on outgoing calls from a specific method.

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 implies usage for understanding method dependencies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_callers or dependency_graph. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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