bsl_callers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool's purpose and gives a parameter example, with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, performance, or prerequisites. For a query tool, this is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence that includes both the purpose and the parameter format. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema (which covers return values), and a straightforward purpose. The description provides the essential parameter format. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., indexing via bsl_reindex) or caveats, but for a simple query tool this is acceptable.

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. It provides a concrete example format for full_name ('ОбщийМодуль.МойМодуль.ИмяФункции'), which clarifies the expected structure beyond the bare schema. This adds meaningful guidance.

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 a clear purpose: finding who calls a function (incoming calls). The example format for full_name adds specificity. The tool name and description implicitly differentiate it from bsl_callees (outgoing calls).

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?

The description implies usage for finding callers, contrasting with bsl_callees for callees, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but a direct mention would strengthen it.

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