Find callees of a symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the key behavior of transitive traversal ('everything this symbol calls, transitively'), but omits details about depth limits, cycle handling, result granularity, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the dash-separated metaphor adds clarity without bloat.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the semantics of repo and depth, the return format, or how it relates to sibling graph-query tools, which is necessary for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the three parameters. It only implicitly references 'symbol' via the title, and says nothing about what 'repo' and 'depth' mean or how they affect the result.

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 title and description clearly identify the action (find callees) and the resource (a symbol). The phrase 'Everything this symbol calls, transitively' precisely conveys the downstream traversal, distinguishing it from sibling tools like who_calls which find callers.

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 the use case—exploring the downstream surface of a function—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over who_calls or impact_of, nor any exclusions or conditions. The context is clear but not formalized.

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