xref.data_refs_from

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully inherits the burden of disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or destructive, whether it requires session_id to be valid, what happens if the address is invalid, or if there are rate or size limits. The concise description lacks essential behavioral context for safe tool selection.

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 (6 words), which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices clarity and usefulness. It is front-loaded only because it is so brief, but it does not earn its place because it fails to convey meaningful information. A 3 reflects minimal viability with wasted opportunity.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of addresses, count). With 3 parameters, a vague sibling landscape, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's correct usage or output from this minimal information.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (session_id, address, length). The description adds no information about any of them—no explanation of what session_id represents, what formats address accepts (integer vs string memory addresses), or what length controls. The agent is left to guess the role of each parameter.

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 'Data references from an address' is too vague. It uses a generic phrase without a specific verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like xref.code_refs_from or xref.data_refs_to. The purpose is unclear—does it return all data references pointing from an address or references to that address? The name suggests 'from', but the description does not confirm this.

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 the many sibling cross-reference tools (e.g., xref.code_refs_from, xref.data_refs_to, xref.code_refs_to). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description gives the agent no help in choosing among these closely related tools.

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