Get Callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait beyond the schema — results are aggregated by calling function, with per-call-site granularity — which tells the agent the return is grouped rather than flat. It says nothing about whether analysis must be complete first (a real risk for a call graph query in a disassembler), error behavior, or performance on large binaries.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too short for a query whose return shape and graph-completeness caveats matter, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more work. It partially covers the return shape via the 'grouped by calling function and call sites' phrase, but omits return format details, whether decompilation/analysis must finish first, and error handling for an unknown addr — leaving real gaps for a 3-parameter query tool.

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 by the schema. The description adds no meaning about the addr format (name vs address) or timeout/instance semantics, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Get callers' — and clarifies the aggregation shape ('grouped by calling function and call sites'). It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling get_callees by direction of traversal, though it never explicitly names that sibling or scopes the result to the function at addr.

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 mention of alternatives such as get_callees or xrefs_to, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the reverse-traversal implied by the tool name itself, which is minimal inference.

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