get_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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — results are resolved call edges, not text matches — which sets expectations about precision and false positives. However, it says nothing about permissions, result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no callers exist.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste, front-loading what the tool returns and following immediately with the when-to-use contrast against grep.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and it does so at a conceptual level (call edges, not text matches). It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of returned caller records or how limit interacts with results, leaving a small but real gap for a tool with a bare schema.

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 coverage is 67%: repo and entity_id are documented in-schema, while limit has no description at all. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. that entity_id must be a function/method ID) beyond what the schema already states, so it neither compensates for the limit gap nor adds value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find entities that call this function') and frames it as answering 'who calls X?' with resolved call edges rather than text matches. This distinguishes it from grep-style search siblings without needing to open any 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'instead of grepping for the name' and gives the disqualifying conditions (comments, strings, same-named functions). It names an alternative approach but not the sibling tools (e.g. search, query_entities) an agent might otherwise pick, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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