callees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does a good job: it discloses that direct and indirect calls appear as tagged rows, explains the meaning of resolved:false, and clarifies the in-repo limitation. It also tells the agent exactly what direct_only changes about the result set.

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 compact and front-loaded; the most useful information appears first. The final 'A jump move' line adds marginal color but is not harmful, and the rest of the text contains meaningful detail without padding.

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?

The description gives enough for a first call, but with no output schema and no annotations it does not fully describe the result shape, text vs JSON differences, or how to interpret an `indirect(...)` tag beyond resolved:false. Some important context is left to inference, though the described behaviors cover the common use case.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates for direct_only but not for the other parameters. 'name' is implicitly identified by the opening sentence, while limit and offset are left to their obvious pagination meaning. The core parameter direct_only is well explained, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 names the resource (symbol), the operation (callees/calls), and the scope (in-repo only), and it distinguishes direct calls from indirect dispatch. This is enough to separate it from sibling tools like 'callers' even without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete guidance: set direct_only to get resolved declaration-only calls; otherwise indirect dispatch is included. It also states that rows represent in-repo calls only. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's relation to 'callers' and its direct/indirect distinction make the intended context clear enough.

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