find_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope fields (items, totalCount, truncated, limit, byProject) and mentions sorting behavior and default limit. However, it does not discuss side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on empty results, leaving some gaps.

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 concise: two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the primary action, and the second lists the output envelope fields. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the return envelope structure adequately. It mentions all key fields but does not detail what items contain (e.g., file path, line number). The presence of many sibling tools and the lack of output schema make this a reasonable but not exhaustive description.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (symbol, limit). The description adds value by clarifying the default limit (500), sorting order (by file, then line), and the allowed format for symbol ('simple or fully qualified'). This enhances the schema's documentation.

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's action ('Find every call site') and resource ('a method'), and specifies the return envelope structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_references' or 'get_call_graph' by focusing specifically on 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks context such as prerequisites, when to prefer 'find_callers' over 'find_references' or 'get_call_graph', or any conditions where the tool should not be used.

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