Find functions called by a function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the heuristic/name-based nature, confidence tiers, grouping of same-named callees with `resolved_to` for disambiguation, and the side effect of automatically building a missing index. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds the ambiguity caveat, filter options, and index auto-build behavior — every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers output grouping, result fields, disambiguation, filters, and index auto-build — solid for a tool with no output schema. It does not state whether `limit`/`offset` apply to grouped callee names or individual call sites, nor the result ordering, which is a minor but real gap for pagination.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light parameter context ('optional file/language filters', 'name-based'), which does not materially go beyond the existing schema descriptions for `name`, `file`, `language`, `root`, `limit`, and `offset`.

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 names the exact resource ('call sites inside a function's body'), the operation ('grouped per callee name'), and the direction of the query. 'Callee' and 'called by a function' make it clear this returns outgoing calls, distinguishing it from inverse siblings like `callers` and `find_references`.

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 gives clear context — inspect call sites inside a named function's body — and mentions optional file/language filters. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as `callers`, `find_references`, or `list_definitions`; the contrast is only implied by the word 'callee'.

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