find_callees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (list of dicts with keys fqn, file_path, line_start) and edge cases (empty list if method not found or makes no calls). It does not discuss side effects or performance, but for a read-only lookup, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then uses standard Args/Returns sections for clarity. It is concise—every sentence adds value—and uses proper formatting (backticks for code, bullet-like structure) to aid readability.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown here), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, behavior of each parameter, return structure, and edge cases. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types), but the description adds significant meaning: method_fqn gets a format example ('com.example.Foo.bar'), and exclude_generated gets a concrete use case (filtering Lombok/compiler-generated callees). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Find all methods directly called by the given method.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('methods directly called'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_callers (which does the inverse) and find_implementations (which finds overrides).

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 specifies that it finds direct callees, implying when to use it (to explore a method's immediate dependencies). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the wording 'directly called' provides clear context.

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