get_callers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers. It discloses that only confirmed locations are returned, that unresolved same-name calls are shown separately, and that module bodies are not read. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a generic 'returns callers' statement.

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 compact: three dense sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add scope caveats and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 the output schema exists and all parameters have rich schema descriptions, the definition is complete. The tool description covers scope, edge-case handling for unresolved same-name calls, and the fact that module bodies are not read, which is enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, but it does not need to; the schema already explains address, limit, config, and extension. A baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Кто вызывает точную процедуру' — who calls the exact procedure. It then enumerates exact kinds of call sites (code locations, subscription/scheduled-job bindings, form items/events), making it clearly distinct from siblings like search_procedures or get_procedure.

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 makes the intended use clear: given an exact procedure address, identify its confirmed callers. It also communicates an important scope rule by stating that unresolved same-name calls are not attributed to the requested address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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