ida_find_string_refs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently explains the two-step behavior (find strings, then list referencing functions) and notes case-insensitivity via the schema. It does not mention potential performance implications or scope, but these are not critical for this straightforward read-only tool.

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: the first defines the functional flow, the second gives practical examples. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the wealth of context from sibling tools, the description is complete enough. It explains exactly what the tool does and what the agent can expect, without needing to detail return formats.

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%, and the schema parameter description already includes the pattern syntax, case-insensitivity, and examples. The tool description adds similar examples but does not meaningfully extend the schema's explanation, so a baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Find all strings matching a regex pattern, then for each string list every function that references it.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ida_strings (just lists strings) and ida_xrefs_to (xrefs to a given address) by combining regex search with reference discovery.

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 provides clear use cases ('Great for finding where 'admin', 'password', 'cmd.exe', or C2 URLs are used') which implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling tool names make the appropriate usage evident.

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