callees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully adds that the result is 'Exhaustive, not truncated,' which is a valuable guarantee about completeness. It does not detail output format or error behavior, but the core behavioral trait is provided.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the purpose is stated first, and the completeness guarantee is added in the second clause with no wasted words.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned and a completeness guarantee. It could specify whether the result is a list of names or objects, but the core behavior is sufficiently clear for invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'procedure' parameter is already documented as 'Procedure name.' The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool returns the routines called by a given procedure. It unambiguously identifies the resource and the relationship direction, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'callers' which covers the reverse direction.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should use this when it needs to know what a procedure calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'callers' or 'call_path', so the agent must infer selection from the sibling list.

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