find_all_callers_recursive

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions deduplication and depth but does not disclose read-only nature, performance implications (e.g., BFS with depth limit), or whether results are from indexed code. Missing safety or side-effect details.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds key output detail (deduplication, depth). No redundant words, front-loaded critical info.

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 output schema exists, full schema coverage, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers core functionality. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases (e.g., symbol not found) or performance caveats for deep recursion, but sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%; all 4 parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating schema info (e.g., max_depth, limit). Baseline 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 it finds all transitive callers (direct or indirect) of a given symbol, using specific verb 'Find' and resource 'transitive callers'. It differentiates from siblings like 'find_callers' by emphasizing 'transitive' and mentions deduplication and depth.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'find_callers' or 'find_callees_recursive'. The description implies usage for transitive caller analysis but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparative context.

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