codegraph_callers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It claims to 'Find all callers' but the schema includes a 'limit' parameter with a default of 50 and a maximum of 200, meaning it does not truly return all callers unless explicitly set. This omission is misleading, and the description does not mention any other behavioral traits like read-only status or pagination.

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 brief and front-loaded, starting with an imperative verb and immediately conveying the core purpose. The three sentences each serve a clear role: defining the action, restating in plain language, and providing the necessary prerequisite. No unnecessary words are present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior. It fails to mention the 'limit' parameter's effect, and the claim of 'all callers' conflicts with the capped result size. This leaves an agent unsure about whether the result set is complete or truncated, which is a significant gap for a tool with minimal other documentation.

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 symbol_id parameter is well-described both in the schema and the description, which adds the important note that it comes from codegraph_search. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the schema only provides type/default/maximum without explaining its purpose. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the optional parameter ambiguous.

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 identifies the resource ('callers of a symbol'), clarifying the function with 'who calls this function?' and specifying the return format (function names with file paths and line numbers). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codegraph_callees, which would find the opposite relationship.

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 clearly states a prerequisite ('Requires the symbol ID from codegraph_search'), implying a workflow where users must first search for the symbol. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools and the clear use case provide sufficient guidance.

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