find_callers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions transitive search with depth, which is useful, but omits safety traits like whether the operation is read-only or any permissions needed. The description adds moderate transparency.

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 a single sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (handling return value documentation), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., what if name not found) but is sufficient for basic use.

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 add meaning. It explains the role of 'name' (the function to find callers of) and 'depth' (transitive hops), which clarifies the parameters. However, it does not specify the format of 'name' (e.g., function signature vs. identifier).

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 tool finds functions that call a given name transitively up to a depth, which is clear for a call-graph tool. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'find_references' or 'impact_of' which might also find callers.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings such as 'find_references' or 'impact_of', leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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