xrefs_rip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the analysis domain (RVA space) and layout modes. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only scan, how results are returned, how 'limit' caps output, or what happens with the string/target filters.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core operation, with zero filler. It is arguably over-terse rather than verbose, which costs a point only in that it packs qualifiers densely.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-liner leaves an agent guessing about filtering semantics, output shape, and defaults. It is far too thin for the configuration surface it exposes.

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% across five parameters. The description clarifies only 'layout' (auto/dump/file) and implies an RVA target space; path, limit, string and target remain undocumented in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find RIP-relative memory refs and direct branches') and adds a scope qualifier (RVA space). It is clearly distinguishable from generic tools like bin_info or strings_scan, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling xrefs, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. xrefs) is named. The layout modes are listed but framed as options rather than as conditions for selecting this tool.

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