rlm_code_callers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions using the persisted code graph, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the impact is, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 that is clear and free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 the tool's complexity (querying a code graph for callers), the lack of output schema and behavioral details leaves the agent underinformed. The description does not cover expected return structure, pagination, or how to interpret results.

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 50%, but the description adds no information about parameters. It does not clarify the roles of qualified_name vs symbol_key, nor explain depth (especially its max of 4) or limit. The schema's own descriptions are partial, and the description fails to compensate.

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 states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'callers of a code symbol', distinguishing it from related siblings like rlm_code_neighbors which find neighbors, not callers. The phrase 'using the persisted code graph' clarifies the data source.

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 but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_code_neighbors or rlm_code_shortest_path. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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