Get Xrefs To Method

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. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, mention pagination via count/offset, describe what happens when the class or method is not found, or explain how the class_name scopes the search. The presence of an output schema relieves some return-value burden, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, and 'all' conflicts with the paginated count/offset defaults, reducing precision.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and sibling tools that perform adjacent reference lookups, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks routing guidance, pagination behavior, and parameter semantics needed for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds almost nothing. It implies a method target via class_name and method_name but does not explain their exact-match requirements, and it entirely ignores count and offset, which are undocumented in the schema as well. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, preventing a 1, but the description fails to clarify the four parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Find all references to a method'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it gives no scope beyond 'a method' and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_xrefs_to_field, get_xrefs_to_class, or get_method_by_name. The word 'all' is also slightly misleading since the schema exposes pagination defaults.

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 get_xrefs_to_field, get_xrefs_to_class, or search_method_by_name. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.