find_xrefs_in_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool scans a section for instructions referencing a target address, lists the reference types, and mentions returning a list with specific fields. It does not discuss side effects, read-only nature, or performance, but these are implicitly clear for a static analysis tool.

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 concise with two paragraphs: first stating purpose and scanning details, then listing Args and Returns. It is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and return value adequately. It does not mention error cases or file existence requirements, but the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context) reduces the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (e.g., file_path is absolute path, target_address is hex string, section_name defaults to .text, arch is auto-detected). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 clearly states the verb ('find') and resource ('cross-references in a binary file's section'), specifying the types of references (call, jump, immediate operand, memory displacement). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_xrefs_hex (which likely operates on hex bytes) and disassemble tools.

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: it is for finding cross-references to a target address in a file's section. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide 'when not to use' guidance. It is adequate but lacks explicit context about alternatives.

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