Get Xrefs To Field

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, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, default limits (count defaults to 20, offset to 0), or whether references are scoped to the analyzed app. It does not contradict anything, but discloses almost no behavior beyond the one-line purpose.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a four-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 needn't be explained, but for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and pagination defaults, the description is too thin. An agent would not know default page size, how to page through references, or how this differs from the method/class xref variants.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. While class_name and field_name are self-explanatory by name, the pagination parameters count and offset — including that count is capped at a default of 20 — are left entirely undocumented 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 field'), making the core operation unambiguous. However, the description never distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_xrefs_to_method or get_xrefs_to_class, relying entirely on the tool name for that differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_xrefs_to_method, get_xrefs_to_class, or get_fields_of_class, and no preconditions (e.g., must the class be loaded/analyzed first). The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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