cerebro_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'name-resolved' and 'may include same-named symbols', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the call graph includes transitive calls, performance implications, or limitations (e.g., static analysis only).

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 description is two sentences and under 30 words. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides usage context. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the complexity of a symbol-level call graph and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits details like whether the tool finds direct call sites only or includes indirect calls, and does not mention any performance or coverage caveats that might be relevant for a repository-wide search.

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 input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating the tool finds call sites 'by NAME', clarifying that the parameter is the symbol name. For a simple string parameter, this is sufficient semantic addition beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool finds call sites of a function/method/class by name across the repo. It uses specific verbs ('Find every call site') and identifies the resource ('function/method/class'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cerebro_impact or cerebro_calls, though the unique focus on call sites is implicit.

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 usage context ('Use to see who actually uses a symbol before you change it'), which implies when to use it (before modification). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives among siblings (e.g., when broader impact analysis via cerebro_impact might be preferred).

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