get_frame_callers

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to reassert that. The description adds the traits 'bounded' and 'source-linked', which are useful behavioral hints not present in annotations. However, it does not describe pagination behavior (cursor) or the output format, where the output schema partially covers that.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Return', and every phrase ('bounded', 'source-linked', 'direct callers') adds meaningful qualifiers. No unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has an output schema, annotations describing safety, and a schema covering 75% of parameters, the description is sufficient for a simple retrieval operation. It communicates the core purpose and limit-based bounding, though it omits explicit guidance on pagination or alternative-tool selection. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 75%, with limit, frame_id, and run_or_artifact already described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the word 'bounded', which maps to the limit parameter. Cursor semantics remain unspecified in the description and are only structurally defined in the schema, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('bounded source-linked direct callers for a frame'). The term 'callers' naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_frame_callees', so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when you need direct callers of a frame. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for the reverse direction, use get_frame_callees'). The naming convention gives some context, but the description itself does not provide explicit guidance beyond the basic use case.

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