callees_of

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether results are direct callees only or transitive, whether the analysis is static or dynamic, or what is returned per call. The only implicit signal is 'List', suggesting a read operation, which is weak evidence for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence with no filler and the key relation ('called by') front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the payload it carries, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly 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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover return shape and call semantics itself. It establishes the basic query but leaves out transitivity depth, return fields, and symbol identifier format — enough for a minimal call, not enough for confident use in a code-graph toolset.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify direction ('called by the given symbol'), which resolves the key ambiguity of which symbol the argument represents, but it says nothing about identifier format (fully qualified name, ID, short name) for a code-graph tool where that matters.

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 verb and resource: 'List symbols called by the given symbol.' The phrasing 'called by' makes it the inverse of the sibling callers_of, so an agent can distinguish direction without opening either schema. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 on when to use this versus callers_of, search_symbols, or module_deps, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name and the one-sentence purpose.

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