find_callers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action but does not mention side effects, performance implications, scope (e.g., whole codebase), or whether results are recursive. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs a heavy operation.

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 sentence, front-loading the purpose. No extraneous information is included, and every word serves a clear function. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format (e.g., list of function names with locations), whether results are transitive, or any limitations. For a static analysis tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use it 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 only parameter, function_name, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by indicating that the function is the one being called, which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., fully qualified name) or restrictions, so it provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 'Find all functions that call the given function' clearly states the tool's action and resource. It is specific enough to indicate what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dependency_tree or search_code, which could also return caller information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools is given. The agent receives no help in choosing between find_callers and tools like dependency_tree or search_code.

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