Find Callers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds context about requiring indexing and returning file path, line number, and surrounding context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second states prerequisite. No unnecessary information, well 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?

Combined with schema, the description covers key return fields and prerequisite. It could mention filtering options like project_path and language for completeness, but overall it is sufficient.

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 60%, but description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what schema provides. It adds 'surrounding context' which is not in schema, but does not explain other parameters like project_path, language, max_results, or response_format.

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 or method, specifying the verb (find) and resource (call sites). It distinguishes from sibling tools like localnest_find_usages by focusing on callers explicitly.

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?

Requires project to be indexed first, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., localnest_find_implementations, localnest_find_usages) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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