callers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the lookup is read-only, whether callers are direct only or transitive, whether `limit` truncates results, or what the result set looks like, so behavior is largely opaque.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than tightly written — nothing extra, but nothing front-loaded beyond the bare relationship.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, but for a 2-parameter graph query with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum define `name` and explain `limit`. Those gaps leave the tool not fully usable from the description alone.

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 0% and the description only echoes the token `name` without defining it (function symbol? file path? qualified name?). The `limit` parameter with its default of 50 is not mentioned at all in the description.

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 the resource relation — functions that call `name` — which is more than a restatement of the tool name. But it uses no verb, gives no scope (direct vs transitive callers), and never contrasts itself with the sibling `callees`, which is the natural confusion point.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of `callees`/`impact` as alternatives for related questions. The agent must infer that this is the reverse-direction edge lookup.

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