get_xrefs_from

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (getting cross-references from an address) but doesn't clarify what format the output takes, whether the address can be resolved to a named location, or any side effects (none expected for a read operation). The output schema exists but is not shown in this context, which is acceptable since the description isn't expected to duplicate it.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with key information front-loaded ('Get all cross-references FROM an address'), followed by a clarifying parenthetical and input format guidance. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema likely clarifies return types, the description is mostly adequate. However, for a cross-referencing tool in a reverse engineering context, it would benefit from mentioning return format expectations (e.g., list of addresses) or edge cases (e.g., what if address has no cross-references). The existing output schema may cover this, but with no annotations, a bit more context would strengthen completeness.

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?

The description adds value over the schema by explaining the 'address' parameter can be a hex address or a name, which the schema alone doesn't specify. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though it could further elaborate on name resolution (e.g., if symbolic names from IDA are accepted).

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 tool gets cross-references FROM an address, with a helpful parenthetical explaining this means what the location calls/references. It specifies input as hex address or name, making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from get_xrefs_to, though the FROM/TO distinction is implied.

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's use case (finding references an address calls), but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given sibling get_xrefs_to exists, the description should clarify that you'd use this for outgoing references and get_xrefs_to for incoming references, but fails to do so. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.

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