codegraph_callers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the definition-selection nuance and does not disclose what results look like, whether calls are direct or transitive, how results are ordered, or what limit controls — behavior an agent would need to interpret the response correctly.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the primary action with zero filler, then appends the one conditional behavior that matters (definition selection by file). Every word earns its place.

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?

For a code-graph query tool with four parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is thin. It omits what the tool returns, the meaning of the undocumented limit parameter, and how to disambiguate multiple definitions in practice — gaps that the schema does not fill.

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 50%; the required 'symbol' and 'limit' parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description partially compensates by clarifying that symbol is the callee whose callers are sought and that file selects a definition, but it does not clarify the undocumented limit parameter's meaning or bounds.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Find functions and methods that call a symbol.' This distinguishes it from the inverse sibling codegraph_callees implicitly (callers vs. callees), though it never names the sibling explicitly. The 'optionally selecting its definition by file' clause adds useful scope precision.

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 a key usage scenario — using file to disambiguate among multiple definitions of a symbol — and the file parameter text routes cross-tool usage ('Use it alone with codegraph_node to read a file'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the seven siblings.

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