nds_find_xrefs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does contribute useful behavioral context: it states the operation is bounded, deterministic, and does not infer loaded overlay state. However, it does not disclose return format, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in what the agent can expect.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler—every phrase ('bounded', 'deterministic', 'proven', 'static scope', 'without inferring loaded overlay state') contributes meaning. It is appropriately compact for the amount of high-level context it conveys.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single high-level sentence is insufficient. The description does not cover parameter interactions, return values, or practical constraints beyond 'bounded', so an agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and external knowledge.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at three concepts ('scope', 'seeds', 'bounded') and does not explain the 12 individual parameters. Key parameters like targetRomOffset, maxBytes, maxComponents, and scope kinds remain underspecified, leaving the agent to rely on names and constraints alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource (xrefs in Nintendo DS static scope) and adds qualifiers like 'bounded deterministic proven' and 'without inferring loaded overlay state' that distinguish it from more general reference-finding tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 context is implied by phrases like 'caller-selected Nintendo DS static scope' and 'using explicit/proven seeds'—an agent can infer it should be used when static, bounded xrefs are needed and seeds are available. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like list_references, so it stays at a middle score.

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