find_callers

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

No annotations are provided, but the description explains what the tool returns (call sites with confidence, completeness risk, repo memories) and notes synthesized dispatch edges. It also describes the worktree parameter's behavior (silent ignoring). Does not explicitly state side effects, but as a query tool this is largely covered.

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 three sentences and information-dense, covering key behaviors, alternatives, and edge cases. It is slightly long but not wasteful; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return content. It mentions call sites with confidence, completeness risk, repo memories, and dispatch edges. Covers worktree behavior. Reasonably complete for a query tool, though it could clarify the exact return structure.

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 low (22%), with only worktree and include having descriptions. The text mentions resolving symbols and include flags, but many parameters (id, ref, limit, edge_kinds, resolution, allow_ambiguous) lack explanation. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from grep-based approaches. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like trace_callees.

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?

It explicitly says 'instead of grepping for call sites' and advises resolving ambiguous symbols with symbol_lookup first, giving clear when-to-use and alternative guidance. Also mentions include/edge options and worktree scoping.

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