get_function_callers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool groups by calling function and shows call sites, but does not explain what 'call sites' entails, how indirect calls are handled, or potential performance implications. The read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a useful differentiation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 one parameter and an output schema (unknown content), the description covers the core purpose and differentiation but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for a reliable agent invocation.

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 schema coverage is 0% (no description for the 'identifier' parameter). The description does not clarify what format the identifier should be (name, address, offset) or any constraints. The agent must infer from context, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 purpose: 'Get all functions that call a given function.' It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Higher-level than xrefs — groups by calling function and shows call sites.' This differentiates it from get_xrefs_to/get_xrefs_from and implies contrast with get_function_callees.

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 some context by comparing to xrefs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_function_callees or get_xrefs_to. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the differentiation is implied.

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