get_xrefs_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as a retrieval ('Get ... cross-references'), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format, but the tool has an output schema that could clarify return values, partially mitigating the gap.

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—two short sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: the verb ('Get'), the scope ('all'), the direction ('TO'), the clarity on input format ('hex address or name').

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's simplicity (single parameter, one clear action) and the presence of an output schema (which can document return values), the description is nearly adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output schema or providing a note on expected results when no cross-references exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for the 'address' parameter by clarifying that hex addresses or names are acceptable. However, the parameter is simple (single string), and the description provides minimal extra meaning beyond what the parameter name and tool purpose imply.

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 action ('Get all cross-references TO an address') and the resource type ('who calls/references this location'). It partially distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'to an address', which contrasts with the sibling 'get_xrefs_from', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 offers implicit guidance by specifying the input type ('hex address or name'), but lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools. No alternatives are suggested.

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