get_callees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior: it does not specify if this requires prior analysis (e.g., disassembly), what the output format is (though an output schema exists), whether it includes indirect calls, or if there are rate limits or permissions needed.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving callees from a function address), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It lacks behavioral details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more context on usage and behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'function_address' with its description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for retrieving callees, but does not clarify format (e.g., hex address) or constraints (e.g., valid ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get all the functions called') and the target resource ('by the function at function_address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_callers' (which would get functions that call a given function) and 'get_function_by_address' (which retrieves function details rather than its 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the function must be defined or analyzed), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_callers' or 'decompile_function' (which might also reveal callees).

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