Get Callees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return structure ('grouped by target function and call sites'), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits read-only confirmation, any cost/rate-limit note, and how ambiguity in the input address is resolved.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and grouping behavior front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though almost to the point of being terse.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it is grouped, which is adequate. It stops short of explaining ordering, completeness, or how the address input is interpreted, leaving modest gaps.

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 addr, timeout, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., address-vs-name resolution, timeout units) beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get callees') and adds scope detail ('grouped by target function and call sites'). The direction (callees vs. the sibling get_callers) is implicit in the term, but the description never names the contrasting sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_callers, callgraph, or xrefs_from, despite those siblings overlapping heavily with this one. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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