Xrefs From

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only query, what the returned cross-references look like, whether code and data refs are both included, or whether the database must be analyzed first. 'Get all' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than earning a top score for structure.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain return shape and safety, and it does neither. For a query tool in a reverse-engineering suite where a wait_for_analysis prerequisite likely exists, this leaves the agent guessing.

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%, so addr ('single or comma-separated'), timeout, and instance_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'address(es)' only echoes the schema's plural support and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cross-references from address(es)') and the directionality of 'from' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling xrefs_to. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_callees or callgraph, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this over xrefs_to, get_callees, callgraph, or find_xref_signatures, and no prerequisites (e.g., analysis completion) are mentioned. Usage must be inferred 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.