callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so credibly: it discloses the resolution semantics ('resolves the same way as symbol_info', dotted Class.method accepted), how to disambiguate common names via file_path, and that `query` is an alias for `name`. It does not mention result limits or ordering, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 example is front-loaded immediately, followed by a tight scoping statement and then resolution details. Every sentence adds information; the only minor cost is the line-broken formatting that fragments the scoping sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the resolution and aliasing guidance, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly; the absence of any note on result size or scope limits is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents `name` resolution rules, the `file_path` disambiguation role, and the `query` alias — covering all three parameters meaningfully. It lacks examples of what a dotted path looks like in practice, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific question the tool answers ('Who calls this function?') with a concrete example, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling `references` by scoping to actual call sites and excluding imports and type-only usages. An agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening a schema.

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 comparison to `references` gives clear selection context: use this when you want actual call sites rather than all references. It explains the narrower scope well, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives such as `implementations`.

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