find_callers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important matching constraints ('directly call' and 'exact fully-qualified'), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or edge-case handling like missing symbols or re-exports.

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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose with no filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential input criteria and matching behavior. It does not explicitly state the return value or format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema fully documents the single 'symbol' parameter with type, requiredness, and an example, so the description adds no new parameter semantics; it merely restates that the symbol must be exact and fully-qualified.

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 clearly identifies the resource: functions/methods that directly call an exact fully-qualified TypeScript symbol. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like impact_of_change and explain_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 implies usage for locating direct callers, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not contrast this tool with transitive-caller or impact-analysis alternatives.

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