get_xrefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return format (a list of dictionaries) and the two input modes (address/name or global query). It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool this is adequate.

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 description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide input modes and a concrete output example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description covers core invocation details (input modes) and the expected return shape. It could be more complete by listing xref_type options, but the defaults and example reduce ambiguity enough for an agent to select and call the 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains address_or_name and hints at xref_type via the CALL example, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or enumerate possible xref_type values. This leaves a notable 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find and analyze cross-references (Xrefs) and call dependencies for a specified function or address.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools such as decompile_function and list_functions.

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?

The description provides clear context by specifying it works for a function or address, and it mentions support for a global query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar.

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