get_xrefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only restates the purpose without mentioning read-only nature, output format, platform context, or potential side effects. The schema and output schema carry the burden of explaining parameters and returns, leaving the description thin on behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core function and direction flexibility, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple, has full schema coverage, and includes an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of platform applicability or relationship to sibling xref tools, making selection slightly less informed in a context with many similar tools.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the address prefix warning and the direction enum semantics. The description adds only 'callers / callees', which paraphrases the schema's direction explanation and does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 gets cross-references to or from an address, with 'callers / callees' clarifying the direction concept. It covers both directions in one tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_xrefs_to and ida_xrefs_from, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving callers or callees, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the direction-specific siblings or other xref utilities. The direction parameter in the schema provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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