find_callers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait (call-graph resolution rather than text search) and implies read-only operation via 'find'. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., indexing) and details about output format or limitations, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and method, the second adds a practical use case. There is no redundancy or filler, 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and use case. It lacks explicit prerequisites or output structure, but these are minimal for this tool and can be reasonably inferred from the call-graph context and sibling tools.

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 100% and the parameter description already explains what 'name' is. The tool description adds the crucial context that resolution is via the call graph, enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema's generic explanation.

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 specific verb 'find' with a clear resource ('functions/methods that call a given function') and explicitly distinguishes itself from text search by stating it is 'resolved through the call graph (not text search)'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like find_symbol and makes the purpose 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?

It provides a clear use case ('Useful for impact analysis before changing a function') and implies when not to use it by saying 'not text search'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it lacks the full explicitness of a 5.

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