Find Xref Signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers very little. It does not say what the return looks like, how many signatures come back per address (beyond the schema default), whether results are ordered, or what happens when no xref exists. The dangling 'For each' suggests missing detail was intended but lost.

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?

It is short, but it is not merely concise — it is truncated mid-sentence ('For each'), so a structural defect rather than efficient brevity. The remaining content is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a signature result contains and how multiple addresses are handled. Instead it stops mid-clause, leaving an agent without the behavioral context the structured fields cannot supply.

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 100%, with each of the six parameters (top, addrs, format, timeout, max_length, instance_id) individually documented including defaults and the format enum-like options. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('signatures for code locations that reference an address'), which distinguishes it from sibling generators like make_signature, make_signature_for_function, and make_signature_for_range that produce signatures for a function or range rather than for xref sites. However, the second sentence is truncated ('For each'), leaving the scope of the result only partially stated.

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 choose this tool over make_signature or xrefs_to, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. requiring a loaded database or analyzed code). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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