find_callees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds performance context ('Fast operation (1-2s) - leverages indexed call relationships'), but it doesn't clarify whether results include only direct callees or transitive calls, nor does it describe the return format. These limitations matter for a dependency-mapping tool.

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 structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, PERFORMANCE, WORKFLOW, TIP), each adding meaningful context. It is longer than a minimal two-sentence description but not bloated; every section contributes practical guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage, workflow, and performance. It lacks an explicit mention of return values and direct-vs-transitive scope, but the workflow and tip provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in common scenarios.

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 100% and the only parameter ('function') is already clearly described in the schema. The description doesn't add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find all functions called by the specified function.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_callers, find_definition, and dependency_analysis by focusing on outgoing dependencies of a single function.

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 USAGE section explicitly says when to use it: to understand function complexity, identify extraction opportunities, or analyze dependency chains. The WORKFLOW provides a suggested sequence (find_definition → find_callees → complexity_analysis), giving clear practical context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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