get_callers

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 such as output format, pagination, error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., rate limits). For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Get all callers') and directly specifies the input ('of the given address'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), 1 parameter with full schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. For a simple read tool, it meets basic needs but doesn't provide enough information for optimal agent use without relying heavily on structured fields.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'function_address' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying it's the address to query for callers. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or clarify parameter meaning further.

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 action ('Get all callers') and the target resource ('of the given address'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_callees' by focusing on callers rather than callees, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. However, it lacks specificity about what 'callers' means in this context (e.g., functions calling the given 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for retrieving callers of a function address, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_xrefs_to' (which might provide cross-references). The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.

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