ida_xrefs_from

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Get all cross-references') without disclosing important behavioral details such as whether results are ordered, whether the 'limit' parameter always applies, how errors are handled, or any potential side effects (though read-only is implied). This is a minimal disclosure for a tool without annotations.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It includes a helpful clarification in parentheses without unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 and the schema's full parameter coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return format or how results are structured, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema. However, the tool is straightforward enough that the description likely suffices for a knowledgeable agent.

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 already describes both parameters (address as source address/symbol, limit as max results with default 50), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 the tool retrieves cross-references FROM an address, with a parenthetical clarifying it means 'what this calls/references'. This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ida_xrefs_to, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 makes the tool's usage context clear: use it to discover what an address calls or references. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the directionality implied by 'FROM' and the contrast with ida_xrefs_to in the sibling list provide sufficient guidance for most use cases.

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