procedure_references

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

The annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world, but not read-only behavior. The description does not explain the non-read-only side effect, including the optional analysis_project_id retention behavior, nor does it describe return semantics or operational constraints.

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 filler and no redundant restatement. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps covered under other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits procedure/document semantics, side effects, return behavior, and sibling tool selection guidance.

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 only 25%, with only analysis_project_id documented in the schema. The description repeats the direction enum and mentions ELF functions, but it does not explain procedure format, the document parameter, or the retention meaning of analysis_project_id, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: trace static references for an ELF function, and indicates incoming/outgoing direction. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as procedure_callers, procedure_callees, or xrefs.

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 one-sentence description implies that the tool is used for reference tracing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this whether to choose procedure_references over procedure_callers, procedure_callees, or xrefs.

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