find_callees_recursive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly describes the recursive search but does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. The BFS depth and limit parameters are mentioned only in the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 existence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention the default max_depth and limit values (present in schema but not in description) for quick understanding. The lack of behavioral notes is acceptable given the output schema.

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%, so baseline 3. The description does not add any additional explanation beyond the schema for the parameters (name, project_root, max_depth, limit), so no extra credit.

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 verb (find) and resource (transitive callees of a given name), and distinguishes from sibling tools like find_callers and find_call_path by specifying 'directly or indirectly'.

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 implies the tool is for finding all callees recursively, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use find_callers or find_call_path). No exclusions or guidance on context are provided.

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