get_function_callees

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns functions called by a given function, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether results include indirect calls, library calls, recursive callees, or if analysis must be complete. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a reverse engineering context.

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?

Two clear, well-structured sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, front-loading the action and following with the result's meaning.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may document return values, so that gap is partially filled. However, given the complexity of reverse engineering and many sibling tools, the description lacks details about assumptions (e.g., analysis state, library coverage) and does not set expectations for edge cases. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but not fully self-contained.

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 sole parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that it refers to 'a given function', so the agent understands it must provide a function reference. However, it does not specify acceptable formats (e.g., name, address, RVA) or whether the function must be defined. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but leaves ambiguity.

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 action ('Get all functions called by a given function') and the resource ('functions'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_function_callers (the inverse) and get_xrefs_to/from (more general references). However, it could be more precise about whether calls are direct or indirect.

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 use for dependency analysis ('Shows what a function depends on'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternative tools (e.g., get_xrefs_to, decompile_function). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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