IDA Pro MCP

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 states the tool retrieves cross references but does not describe what 'cross references' entail (e.g., types, formats, or limitations), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (cross references). It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or how results are structured, which is critical for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the parameter's purpose ('to the given address'), but it does not provide additional context such as address format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get all cross references') and the target resource ('to the given address'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_xrefs_to_field', which might handle cross references to fields rather than addresses, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_xrefs_to_field' or other cross-reference-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for invocation.

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