xref.code_refs_from

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it can return large data sets, if pagination or truncation occurs, or what happens for invalid addresses. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or performance considerations.

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 extremely short (five words), which is concise but arguably under-specified. While it avoids fluff, it sacrifices necessary detail. There is no structure beyond a single phrase, which is acceptable for a very simple tool but inadequate given the three parameters and zero schema documentation.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide enough context. It doesn't explain the return format, whether results are ordered, or what the length parameter controls. In the context of a disassembler/decompiler suite, an agent needs more details to use this tool effectively among many cross-reference tools. The description is incomplete.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters. The tool has three parameters (session_id, address, length) but the description mentions none of their semantics—not even that session_id is required or that address can be integer or string. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent guessing about the role of length.

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 'Code references from an address' uses a clear verb-noun phrase indicating the tool retrieves cross-references pointing from a given address. However, it doesn't specify what type of code references (calls, jumps, etc.) or what the output looks like, which is minimal but adequate to convey the core purpose. Among siblings like xref.code_refs_to and xref.data_refs_from, the name and description provide some differentiation but could be more explicit about 'from' vs 'to' code references.

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 usage guidance is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like xref.code_refs_to or xref.data_refs_from. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid address from a binary analysis session) or context for when this tool is appropriate. This absence forces the agent to infer based solely on the tool name, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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