cerebro_callers

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that the tool is name-resolved and may include same-named symbols, which is a transparency about potential false positives. However, it does not mention read-only nature, performance, or auth requirements.

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 concise sentences: first defines functionality with qualifiers, second provides usage advice. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral detail (name resolution). An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Might lack details on handling of classes vs functions, but overall sufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that the 'name' parameter is used as a symbol name to find call sites. It clarifies the purpose of the single parameter beyond the schema's title.

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 it finds every call site of a function/method/class by name, specifies scope (across repo), and notes it's name-resolved. This differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on callers of a symbol.

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 explicitly advises 'Use to see who actually uses a symbol before you change it,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cerebro_calls or cerebro_impact, but the context implies when to use.

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