function.var_refs_from

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' variable references, implying a read operation, but does not confirm non-destructive behavior, explain what constitutes a 'variable reference', or mention any side effects, performance constraints, or error conditions. The agent lacks essential behavioral context.

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 single-sentence description is extremely short, but conciseness is not a virtue when substance is missing. It earns a baseline score because it is not verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., no bullets, no parameter summary) and omission of essential details prevent a higher score.

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 tool has five parameters with no explanations, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot determine required inputs, return format, or how to interpret results. For a tool of this complexity, the description provides far too little context to be usable.

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%, leaving all five parameters (`session_id`, `function_start`, `address`, `level`, `length`) entirely undocumented in the schema. The description only implicitly references `address` but fails to explain the meaning of each parameter, their relationships, or constraints (e.g., what `level` enum values 'mlil'/'hlil' mean, what `length` controls). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 'List variable references originating from an address' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('variable references'), with a qualifying prepositional phrase that distinguishes it from sibling tools like `function.var_refs` (which likely lists all variable references in a function) and the `xref` family. The purpose is immediately clear and unique.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `function.var_refs` or `xref.code_refs_from`. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The brief description only implies utility from the name, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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