get_callers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the key behavior (direct/transitive callers) but omits details like recursion depth limits, performance implications, or how transitively is defined. Adequate for simple use.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the key action. Every part is essential and informative.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality. It explains parameter origin and result scope. Could mention if output is function IDs or names, but output schema likely handles that.

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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that `fn` is a node ID from get_context/get_details, giving context for parameter usage. No examples or validation constraints provided, but valuable addition beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns functions that call a given function `fn`, with direct or transitive calls. Differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on callers rather than dependencies or hierarchy. Could be slightly more explicit but is clear.

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?

Provides context that `fn` comes from get_context/get_details, which guides where to obtain the input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_dependencies, leaving agents to infer from purpose.

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