find_calls

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (file, line, resolved status) and implies a read operation with no side effects. It does not mention permissions or limits, but the tool's nature is simple search.

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 focused paragraph with no redundancy. Examples are embedded naturally, and the structure is easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.

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 search tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use cases, and output sufficiently. It does not need additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing parameter usage in context (e.g., name='getUserById', className='redis') and giving default/max values, which help an agent understand parameter interplay.

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 states the tool finds all places that call a specific function or method, with concrete examples (e.g., 'Who calls getUserById?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trace_calls by focusing on direct call sites.

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 explicitly lists use cases with example questions, guiding when to use the tool. It does not directly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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