CodeGraph: codegraph_callees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral detail beyond its core purpose: it does not disclose that results are direct callees only, how overloads or dynamic dispatch are handled, or what happens when multiple same-named symbols exist. The 'full flow' sentence is routing guidance, not a behavioral trait.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the alternative tool note is appended efficiently. 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?

The schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the result shape, whether the list is sorted, or whether it includes only direct calls. Given the complexity of code-graph analysis, an agent would benefit from knowing what the returned list contains and how to disambiguate symbols, so the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description introduces no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the high-coverage baseline but adds no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List functions that <symbol> calls') that unambiguously defines callees. It names one sibling (codegraph_explore) as an alternative, but does not explicitly contrast with codegraph_callers or clarify whether only direct calls are returned, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear routing instruction: 'For the full flow, use codegraph_explore,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not explain when to choose callees over other codegraph siblings like callers or impact, leaving some usage context implied rather than explicit.

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