get_frame_callers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the qualifiers 'bounded' and 'source-linked', but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, whether the result set is ordered, or how source linking is resolved. It provides useful but minimal added context beyond 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 sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, the term 'source-linked' is used without explanation, slightly reducing clarity for an agent unfamiliar with the internal model.

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 5-parameter schema, partial schema coverage, and a sibling tool get_frame_callees that represents the inverse operation, the description is not fully contextually complete. It leaves the agent to infer pagination, metric semantics, and how direct callers differ from stack examples or trace windows. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values, but the tool's place in a larger workflow remains 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 only 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. While limit, frame_id, and run_or_artifact have some schema descriptions, cursor and metric are undocumented in the schema and unexplained in the description. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 identifies the action ('Return'), resource ('direct callers for a frame'), and key qualifiers ('bounded source-linked'). This distinctly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_frame_callees, which would return the opposite direction of the call graph.

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 its intended use for retrieving callers of a frame, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_frame_callees, get_stack_examples, or other analysis tools. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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