find_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 discloses several behavioral traits: returns call sites with confidence + target verification, a completeness/false-positive risk summary, repo memories, and synthesized dispatches edges. It implies a read-only query. While not exhaustive, it provides substantial transparency.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output detail, edge case (dispatches), and usage guidance. No redundant or tautological content.

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 (graph traversal, 9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key output aspects but lacks details on parameter interactions, return format structure, and how to interpret confidence/verification. It is adequate but not fully 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 only 22% (2 of 9 parameters described). The description does not add any parameter-level explanations beyond the schema. It mentions resolving ambiguous symbols but does not describe parameters like 'include', 'edge_kinds', or 'resolution'. The high parameter count with low schema coverage demands more compensation.

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 purpose: 'Find what calls a symbol (reverse call graph)'. It uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'callers of a symbol', and distinguishes from alternative approach 'grepping for call sites'. It also contrasts with sibling tools like 'trace_callees' (forward direction) and 'symbol_lookup' (resolution).

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 provides explicit guidance to 'Resolve the symbol with symbol_lookup first when a name is ambiguous', indicating when to use which tool. It also implies use instead of grepping. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to other graph tools like 'trace_callees'.

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