callees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing that results include call sites and that unresolved calls are returned with reasons, which shapes how an agent interprets the output. It says nothing about result volume or pagination.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then the secondary payoff of unresolved-call diagnostics.

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?

With one parameter and full annotation coverage the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly sufficient, and it does explain what comes back despite having no output schema. The unresolved gap is symbol formatting and whether results are recursive or single-level, which an agent needs before calling.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no help. The description partially compensates by establishing that the symbol is a function or method, but it never states the expected format (bare name vs qualified 'Class.method') which matters greatly for a code-analysis lookup.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list what a function or method calls, returning resolved callees with call sites plus unresolved calls. That directionality makes it distinguishable from the sibling 'callers' without opening a schema, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the outgoing-call framing tells an agent this is the inverse of 'callers', so the direction choice is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as 'callers' or 'impact'.

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