find_callers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or any requirements. The schema mentions 'Returns direct call sites,' but this is in a parameter description, not a comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. No filler or redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains the tool's function, though it could briefly note that results are limited to direct call sites to prevent confusion with the recursive sibling.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the tool's purpose. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema_coverage is high.

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?

Description clearly states it finds call sites of a function/method. The phrase 'who calls `name`' is specific and unambiguous. The sibling 'find_all_callers_recursive' implies this finds direct callers only, providing distinction.

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 provides basic context ('who calls `name`') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_all_callers_recursive' or 'find_callees_recursive'. No usage exclusions or recommendations are given.

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