find_callees

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does contribute one meaningful behavioral fact — "directly" implies a non-transitive, one-hop traversal — but it is silent on whether the call is read-only, what happens with an invalid or leaf symbol, and how the results are shaped.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope qualifier "directly"; no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back (symbol list shape, handling of unresolved or dynamic calls, empty result behavior). For a simple one-parameter read tool it is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it says "the given symbol" but never explains that symbol_id is an integer identifier or where to get one (get_symbol/search_symbols). This leaves the agent guessing about ID provenance.

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?

A specific verb ("List") plus a precisely defined resource ("symbols the given symbol directly calls"). The word "directly" implicitly marks the depth-1 boundary, which distinguishes it in spirit from find_callers, but no sibling is named so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of find_callers, impact_analysis, or cross_language_edges, and no prerequisite guidance such as how to obtain a valid symbol_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

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