get_frame_callees

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds bounded and source-linked context, but leaves metric and cursor behavior unexplaind. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single dense sentence with no redundant words. The key action and object are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 read-only getter with an output schema and good required-parameter documentation, this is minimally adequate. However, it omits pagination/metric context and does not explain how it fits with related frame-analysis tools, leaving some serach ambiguity.

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 schema describes limit, frame_id, and run_or_artifact, but cursor and metric have no meaningful descriptions. The tool's description does not compensate for those gaps - 'bounded' only hints at limit, and 'source-linked' does not explain how metric affects the results.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('direct callees for a frame'), with useful qualifiers ('bounded', 'source-linked') that distinguish its behavior. The noun 'callees' makes the direction opposite to the sibling get_frame_callers evident, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_frame_callers or get_stack_examples. There is no mention of prerequisites, how the callee relationship is produced, or when this tool should be preferred.

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