ida_xrefs_to

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. It states the core action but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or that the 'all' claim is limited by the 'limit' parameter (default 50). The description could mislead about completeness of results.

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 that directly states the action and purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 with 2 parameters, but no output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not mention what the result looks like, pagination, or edge cases (e.g., invalid address). Still, for a basic xref lookup, the description covers the core purpose.

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 both parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get all cross-references') plus a resource ('an address') and clarifies the direction with 'TO' and the parenthetical 'who calls/references this'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ida_xrefs_from, which would handle the opposite direction.

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 by explaining the purpose ('who calls/references this'), but does not explicitly contrast with ida_xrefs_from or other xref-related tools. There is no mention of when to use this vs. alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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