impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior: one line per caller, nearest first, with the output line format spelled out. It says nothing about whether `limit` truncates results, whether depth bounds the traversal, or whether the tool is purely read-only (only inferable from the subject matter).

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 short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the blast-radius framing leads and the output format follows. Efficient, though the terseness is part of why parameter semantics go uncovered.

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 values needn't be explained, yet the description still usefully sketches the line format. However, for a 3-param graph tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the absence of limit/truncation behavior and of routing versus `callers`/`callees` leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains `name` (the symbol analyzed) and shows `depth` in the output format, but never explains that depth bounds traversal or what its default of 3 means, and `limit` is entirely unmentioned.

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+resource: it returns everything that transitively calls `name`, i.e. the reverse-dependency closure. The word "transitively" implicitly separates it from the sibling `callers`, though it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

"What a change to it could break" implies the use case (pre-refactor blast-radius check), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as `callers` for direct-only callers or `callees` for the opposite direction. Usage is only implied.

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