gograph_callees

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool, no side effects, requires no authorization, no rate limits.' This supplements annotations with operational specifics and confirms no behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Description is concise (a few sentences) and well-structured with sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS). It conveys necessary information without redundancy, though could be slightly more condensed without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the return value ('complete array of callees, including their package paths and signatures'). Together with schema coverage and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects for effective tool usage.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'function' with a clear description. Description reiterates and provides an example ('Serve'), but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find and list all downstream functions or methods invoked from inside the specified caller function.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'gograph_callers' which lists upstream callers.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('understand downstream execution flow') and when not to use ('Do NOT use if you want upstream callers – use gograph_callers instead'). Provides clear context for appropriate invocation.

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