codegraph_callees

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the return content ('called functions with file paths and line numbers') and the necessary input. However, it does not mention whether results are direct or transitive callees, how limit affects results, or any potential performance implications. This leaves some ambiguity for a code-analysis tool.

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, immediately states the purpose, and front-loads the key information. The second sentence adds essential return-type detail and a prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and what input is required. It does not mention edge cases like pagination or direct vs. transitive callees, but these are not critical for a basic query tool and can be inferred from the schema and tool name.

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 provides a description for symbol_id, and the tool description reinforces this by stating the symbol ID comes from codegraph_search. The limit parameter is not described in the schema or the description, but its name and default/max values make it reasonably self-explanatory. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Find all callees of a symbol') and explains the query in plain language ('what does this function call?'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling codegraph_callers by explicitly focusing on callees, not callers.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when you need to know what functions a given symbol calls. It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires the symbol ID from codegraph_search'), which helps the agent know the correct invocation sequence. It does not contrast with alternatives like codegraph_callers, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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