Get Xrefs To Class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' weakly implies a read operation, but it says nothing about whether results are capped, whether count/offset truncate the reference list, or that only 20 results come back by default — behaviorally important for a xref tool that can return large volumes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured; the deficiency is missing information, not verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and two undocumented pagination parameters, the definition leaves an agent unable to know that results are paged and default-limited. This is inadequate for a paged query tool with three parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The required class_name is inferable from the tool name, but count and offset — including their defaults of 20 and 0, which silently truncate results — are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 all references to a class'), which is unambiguous on its own and clearly distinguishable from write-style siblings like rename_class. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical get_xrefs_to_method and get_xrefs_to_field siblings, which the agent must infer from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the method/field xref siblings, no prerequisites, and no note about needing the class already loaded or selected. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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