what_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses what each edge contains (rule, confidence, path:line), that edges below the threshold are hidden and tallied in notes, and how to relax the filter. Missing only whether the traversal can be expensive or has any auth/limit caveats.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core operation leads and the confidence-threshold behavior follows. Every clause contributes either return-shape or filtering information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not have been explained, yet the description usefully characterizes the edge payload anyway. The only real gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter for a traversal whose result count is bounded.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents depth (1-3), min_confidence (0.5 default, 0.1 for ambiguous matches), but says nothing about `limit` (default 25) or what qualifies as a `symbol`, leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific resource and relationship — 'Callers of a symbol' — and scopes it with the depth range 1-3, immediately distinguishing it from the callee-side sibling what_does_it_call. An agent can identify the operation and its direction without opening any schema.

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?

Gives actionable operational guidance: depth is bounded to 1-3 and min_confidence defaults to 0.5, with an explicit instruction to pass 0.1 to surface low-confidence name-only matches. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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