xref_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Side-effects: None' and 'Read-only XREF query.' More importantly, it adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: paths outside configured allowed roots are redacted, and the listing reports contained/resolved/loaded state. It does not describe permission requirements or pagination, but the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary listing behavior and redaction rule come first, followed by side-effect and disambiguation notes. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and readOnlyHint=true, the description supplies everything needed to select and call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, key return-state concepts, redaction behavior, safety context, and a disambiguation hint without over-explaining output details already available in the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the schema confirms an empty object with additionalProperties false.

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 and resource ('List live AutoCAD external references') and specifies the state fields returned ('contained/resolved/loaded state'). It also explicitly frames the tool as a read-only XREF query for inspecting external DWG attachments, which distinguishes it from the mutation-oriented xref_attach, xref_reload, xref_unload, and xref_detach siblings.

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 'Disambiguation: Use to inspect external DWG attachments' line gives a clear usage context, and 'Read-only XREF query' implies when to choose it over mutating XREF siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for modifying or reloading references.

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