nds_ghidra_list_calls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and mostly succeeds. It explicitly states the bounded depth-one traversal, the requirement of a canonical NDS function, the 'already-current project' precondition, and the absence of recursive traversal. This adds meaningful behavior context beyond the schema, though it omits return format and error behavior.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds meaningful constraint or context. There is no wasted or redundant prose.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the tool's core purpose and limitations but omits parameter explanations, output/return behavior, expected error conditions, and practical usage context. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too sparse to be considered complete enough for an agent to use it correctly without additional guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters (rom, processor, runtimeAddress, direction, limit, offset, overlayId). The phrase 'one canonical NDS function' hints at runtimeAddress but provides no explicit mapping. The description adds almost no value in understanding parameter semantics.

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 ('List'), the resource ('callers/callees'), and the constraints ('bounded depth-one', 'Ghidra-derived', 'one canonical NDS function'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nds_ghidra_list_references and nds_find_xrefs by specifying the graph traversal scope and derivation 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 when to use the tool: when you need direct, non-recursive callers/callees for a single function in a current project. The phrase 'No recursive graph traversal is exposed' provides an exclusion but does not name alternatives for recursive needs. It also mentions 'in an already-current project' as a prerequisite but does not explain how to ensure currency (e.g., via nds_ghidra_bootstrap).

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