xref.code_refs_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what the return format looks like, if there are performance implications for large result sets, or how pagination works via limit/offset. The description is too sparse to convey important behavioral traits.

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 concise at five words. It's front-loaded and to the point, but may be too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more context would be welcome.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and is part of a large sibling group with similar purposes, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain how results are ordered, how pagination works, what constitutes a 'code reference,' or how the address parameter's integer vs. string variant is used. More documentation is warranted for usability.

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%, so the description should compensate for the four parameters. It mentions 'address' in the description text, tying it to the tool's purpose, but provides no meaning for session_id, limit, or offset. However, limit/offset are generic pagination parameters that experienced users may infer, and session_id is a common context parameter in this tool suite. The description adds value for address but not the others, resulting in a baseline-adjusted 3.

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 finds 'code references to an address,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like xref.code_refs_from (which would go the opposite direction) and xref.data_refs_to (which looks at data references, not code references). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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 vs. alternatives like xref.code_refs_from, xref.data_refs_to, or search tools. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., the session must be open, the address must be valid) or context in which it is most useful.

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