impact_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the primary action (list callers) but does not disclose important traits such as whether callers are direct or transitive, whether results are limited to the indexed repo, or potential performance implications. This ambiguity leaves the agent guessing about blast radius scope.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a one-line args annotation. It fronts the purpose and adds necessary parameter context without any fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers invoking it correctly. It could be improved by clarifying the semantics of 'callers' (direct vs transitive), but overall it is sufficiently complete 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?

The description thoroughly explains the only parameter chunk_id, including an example format ('pkg/mod.py::ClassA.method') and its source ('from search results'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: given a chunk id, list callers (the blast radius). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or get_context.

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 indicates usage context: 'from search results' and references 'the qualname shown in results', guiding when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but context is clear.

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