get_callers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as whether it returns a list or single result, if there are rate limits, permission requirements, or how it handles invalid addresses. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 reverse engineering tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'callers' means in this context, the return format, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds minimal semantic context by implying the parameter is an address to query callers from, but the input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description ('Address of the function to get callers'). The description doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints beyond what's in 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 action ('Get') and target resource ('callers of the given address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_callees' or 'get_xrefs_to', which might have overlapping functionality in a reverse engineering context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_callees' (which might get functions called by an address) or 'get_xrefs_to' (which might get cross-references). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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