project_xref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key limitation: range, implicit double-word, and indirect addresses are not guaranteed complete. It also implies a read-only listing operation, though it does not describe output format or failure behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and result, then appends the important completeness caveat. There is no filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the purpose and a critical limitation. It does not fully specify the return structure, but the stated output content and caveat are largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already explains `project` and optional `device` with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the general explicit-address focus, matching the schema baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists the instructions and read/write classification for explicit device addresses. It states the scope and exclusions clearly, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as project_search or symbols_read.

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?

Intended use is implied: use it when you need cross-reference information for explicit device addresses. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any when-not conditions or sibling substitutes.

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