nds_ghidra_list_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several behavioral traits: the data source (Ghidra), the bounded nature, the project-state prerequisite, and the non-authoritative caveat. However, it leaves out return behavior (e.g., empty results, error conditions) and the practical implication of non-authoritative data, which is a 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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first conveys the core action and scope; the second adds a critical caveat. It is front-loaded, specific, and free of padding.

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?

Despite a clear core purpose, the description lacks essential details for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. It does not explain return format, the differences from similar sibling tools, or how to interpret the non-authoritative references, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 for its 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'bounded' (limit/offset) and 'to/from' (direction), while leaving rom, processor, overlayId, and the exact meaning of 'canonical NDS address' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to set all parameters correctly.

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's function: list bounded Ghidra-derived references to/from one canonical NDS address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nds_list_references and nds_find_xrefs by emphasizing the Ghidra derivation, the pagination, and the single-address scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when Ghidra-derived references are needed) and emphasizes that the project must be 'already-current.' It also warns that references are non-authoritative, which signals caution, but it does not explicitly point to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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