get_callers

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It describes behavior (incoming calls, max_depth hops) but lacks disclosure of read-only nature, performance implications, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality, then usage context. No fluff.

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?

Adequate for a simple query tool with output schema. Covers purpose, use case, and main constraints. Could mention prerequisite of valid node_id or result format, but output schema handles return values.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no new parameter details beyond hinting at max_depth. Node_id lacks schema description and tool description doesn't compensate.

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 clearly it returns caller nodes up to a depth. Distinguishes itself as the primary impact analysis tool, contrasting with siblings like get_callees (outgoing).

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?

Explicitly frames as 'PRIMARY tool for impact analysis' with a concrete use case ('what breaks if I change X?'). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies its role.

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