function_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key detail about requiring parentheses (excluding non-call references), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention output format, whether the project must be loaded, or how dynamic calls are handled—leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool this is acceptable, but it's not fully complete. It fails to explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings (find_references, function_call_graph) and doesn't describe return values or prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess at some usage aspects.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (name and symbol) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that symbol is the function name.

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 clearly identifies the action (Finds) and the resource (calls to a function), with a useful parenthetical clarifying that it targets invocations with parentheses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_references, which likely cover all references, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call when you want to locate actual call sites of a function. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like find_references or function_call_graph, nor exclusions for non-parenthesized usages.

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