Find callers of a symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure and does a good job by explaining that the tool returns every symbol that reaches the target through the call graph, with nearest-first ordering. It does not disclose output format or performance limitations, but the core traversal behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 with no filler: the first states the core behavior, and the second provides a useful analogy to grep. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description captures the main purpose and ordering but omits any detail about the return payload, the repo parameter, or prerequisites like indexing. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail would be helpful, though the tool's simplicity keeps it at an adequate level.

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 description adds no information about the parameters (repo, depth, symbol). The schema already describes symbol and depth, but repo has no description, and the tool description does not clarify its role or how depth affects the results, so it fails to supplement the schema.

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 defines the tool's purpose: it finds all symbols that reach the given one through the call graph, ordered by distance. It also distinguishes itself from grep and implicitly from sibling tools like what_it_calls (callees) by emphasizing it finds callers, not the symbol definition.

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 call-graph analysis but never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It only contrasts with grep, not with other tools like find_symbol or impact_of, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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