trace_callees

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the default filtering behavior and the ability to include noise, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or output shape. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the purpose, the second adds key filtering details. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It references 'same evidence shape as find_callers' which may help if that sibling is well-documented, but it does not explain the output structure, usage of most parameters, or return semantics. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description should compensate. It only explains the 'include' parameter's filtering behavior, leaving the other 8 parameters (id, ref, limit, symbol, worktree, edge_kinds, resolution, allow_ambiguous) unexplained beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a low-coverage scenario.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find what a symbol calls (forward call graph)', providing a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishing from the sibling 'find_callers' by explicitly referencing its reverse direction.

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 mentions default filtering of unresolved/common-method noise and how to include them via the 'include' array, offering explicit usage guidance. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites, and the comparison to find_callers is implicit rather than an explicit alternative recommendation.

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