procedure_callers

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. 'Static' hints that dynamic/indirect call edges are excluded, but it never says whether indirect calls, PLT stubs, or tail calls are included, nor how results are retained via analysis_project_id.

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 efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the shape of a caller record, pagination, or failure modes when the procedure is not found. An agent cannot predict what it will get back or how to format the procedure argument.

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 only 33%: only analysis_project_id is documented. The required 'procedure' parameter is ambiguous (symbol name? mangled name? address?) and 'document' has no explanation at all, yet the description mentions neither, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List static callers') scoped to an ELF function, which an agent can distinguish from procedure_callees by the word 'callers'. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling or clarifying that only static (not runtime) call edges are reported.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus procedure_callees, xrefs, or procedure_references, all of which plausibly answer related questions. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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