nds_list_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are 'bounded', 'deterministic', and 'proven', hinting at safe/static behavior, but it does not explain what 'proven' means in practice, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens if the code window is not uniquely mapped. Partial disclosure.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and has no wasted words. It is concise but the dense jargon ('bounded deterministic proven', 'uniquely mapped') sacrifices immediate comprehension.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only a vague one-liner. It does not explain how to specify the code window, what the return value represents, or how parameters interact. This is severely incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 zero description coverage for its 8 parameters, and the description does not define any of them. Terms like 'code window' are not mapped to the actual parameters (rom, processor, mode, maxBytes, overlayId, romOffset, runtimeAddress, maxInstructions), so the description adds no value in understanding the input semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'references' are clear, and the phrase 'from one uniquely mapped code window' indicates a scope. However, 'references' is ambiguous—it is not specified whether these are cross-references, data references, or branch targets—and the description does not distinguish this tool from the sibling nds_find_xrefs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The 'uniquely mapped code window' hint implies a constraint but stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice.

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