callees_of

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return value: it returns resolved callees with call sites, unresolved external/stdlib names, and dynamic calls, which sets expectations about completeness and limitations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information: why to call it and what it returns. There is no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, the returned content, and the limits of resolution (unresolved and dynamic calls), while the schema covers parameter behavior and annotations cover safety.

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%, and the query parameter is already well documented with examples and ambiguity handling. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 purpose ('understand what a function does without reading its body, or to find its dependencies') and clearly identifies the returned resource: resolved callees with call sites, plus unresolved names and dynamic calls. This makes it easily distinguishable from the sibling callers_of and references_of tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to understand a function's behavior without reading its body, or to discover dependencies. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like callers_of or references_of, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer the right choice.

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