Get Xrefs From

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly does not. It implies a read-only lookup via '查看' but says nothing about return shape, resolution failures for invalid addresses, whether unanalyzed binaries work, or any limits — real gaps for an xref query whose results depend heavily on prior analysis state.

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 short sentence with the direction constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a consequence of under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description would need to do all the work and instead covers only direction. An agent cannot tell what the results look like or how to supply the binary parameter correctly, which is inadequate for a two-required-parameter address-resolution tool.

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%, so the schema contributes no parameter documentation at all. The description only clarifies that 'address' is the source address whose outbound edges are listed; the required 'binary' parameter is never explained (which binary identifier is expected, and where to obtain it), leaving half the inputs undefined.

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 specific verb and resource (view all outbound references from a given address) and parenthetically clarifies directionality ('它引用了谁'). The word '向外' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_xrefs_to, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the direction qualifier suggests this is the tool for caller→callee edges rather than incoming references. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_xrefs_to or get_function_xrefs, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the binary must already be analyzed) are mentioned.

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