find_xref_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does explain the algorithm and output selection ('returns the shortest ones'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure modes (e.g., what happens when an address has no xrefs). Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanism, then the ideal use case. No wasted text. Slightly more compact than strictly necessary but well structured.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It explains the returned artifact (shortest signatures per address) and the format options come from the schema, leaving the definition reasonably self-sufficient, though it omits what is returned when no xrefs are found.

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 documents all five parameters (top, addrs, format, max_length, instance_id) including defaults and enum-like format values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find signatures for code locations that reference an address') and clarifies the mechanism (finds code xrefs TO each address, generates a signature at each site). It implicitly distinguishes itself from direct signature siblings like make_signature by noting it serves addresses 'that can't be signatured directly,' though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Ideal for creating signatures for data addresses, vtable entries, or string references that can't be signatured directly.' This steers the agent toward the right scenario, but it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., make_signature/make_signature_for_function) or stating when not to use it.

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