tmf_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses ambiguity handling ("ambiguous names return candidates, never a guess"), partial coverage, staleness semantics, and that source is authoritative. Only the return payload shape is left unaddressed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by tightly packed caveats. It is dense but efficient; the telegraphic second half ("fresh != correct; source is authoritative") is informative though slightly oblique.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe the returned caller representation, but it only says ambiguous names yield "candidates." Behavioral caveats are covered, yet the return contract is underspecified.

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% with three undocumented optional params, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it distinguishes claim_id as one lookup path from qualname+path as another and notes path is optional, but it gives no format, mutual-exclusivity, or precedence rules for the parameters.

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 known callers") and names the two lookup keys (claim_id or qualname+path), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like tmf_readers/tmf_writers, which would have pushed it to 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?

The description implies two valid invocation modes (by claim_id, or by qualname plus optional path), which is useful context for choosing inputs. However, it never states when this tool is preferred over tmf_readers, tmf_writers, or tmf_retrieve, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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