get_xrefs_from

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral-disclosure responsibility. 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not state side effects, session requirements, permissions, or safety characteristics, and the existing output schema is not referenced.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary verbosity. The unexplained '(axf)' is minor clutter, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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 2-parameter read tool with a sibling get_xrefs_to and no annotations, the description omits critical context: when to prefer it, how session_id affects behavior, and what the return values represent. The output schema helps, but the description itself is incomplete.

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. It vaguely maps to the required 'address' parameter but gives no format or syntax details, and it entirely omits the optional 'session_id' parameter.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'cross references' and source 'from an address' clearly state the operation. The 'from' wording implicitly distinguishes it from get_xrefs_to, but sibling differentiation is not explicit and '(axf)' is unexplained.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus get_xrefs_to or any other alternative. There are also no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage only implied by the phrase 'from an address'.

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