astra_get_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the structural-graph mechanism and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention prerequisites such as an indexed repository, whether callers are direct or indirect, limits on traversal, or error behavior. This is too little transparency for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. 'Exact' and 'structural graph' are meaningful qualifiers, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, this unannotated tool has three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance. The description does not explain how to construct path/target values, whether the repo must be indexed first, or how result limits behave. An agent would need to guess important invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'target' refers to a function or method; it does not explain what 'path' means, how 'limit' applies, or the expected format of 'target'. The description fails to close the parameter documentation 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the resource ('exact callers of a function or method') plus the mechanism ('structural graph'). The qualifiers 'exact' and 'structural' help differentiate it from semantic-search siblings, so an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 phrase 'exact callers' implies a precise, structural query rather than a semantic one, giving some context for when to use it. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives like astra_semantic_search or states when not to use this tool.

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