get_callers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral context on its own. It mentions scope (file/package) and the reverse call graph concept, but omits details like whether callers are direct or transitive, the format of the result, and handling of unresolved symbols. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and scope with no redundant words. It is ideally concise.

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 is too terse for a complex analysis tool. It fails to describe the return format, whether the search is direct or transitive, or how external function references are handled, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.

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?

The input schema fully covers all three parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions for path, scope, and function. The description adds no substantive parameter details beyond restating the 'file or package' scope already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Finds'), resource ('functions in a file or package that call the specified function'), and explicitly notes 'reverse call graph', distinguishing it from the sibling call_graph tool.

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 implies usage for reverse call analysis but does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusion conditions. The term 'reverse call graph' hints at when to use it, but no direct comparison to siblings like call_graph or find_usages is provided.

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