xref.data_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 states the tool returns data references to an address, which implies a read operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination (despite a limit parameter), what the response format looks like, whether it requires a specific session state, or any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly longer to add value without losing conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and operates in a complex binary analysis context (as evidenced by numerous sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the address format, the effect of the limit parameter, return structure, or prerequisites like having an open session. The tool's role within the larger cross-reference family is not clarified.

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 must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level documentation. The address parameter's oneOf type (integer or string) and the limit parameter's meaning are left entirely unexplained. The session_id parameter is not mentioned at all. The description offers no semantics beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 to an address' clearly indicates the tool retrieves cross-references pointing to a given address. The verb is implied (list/retrieve) and the resource (data references) is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like xref.code_refs_to or xref.data_refs_from, though the naming convention helps differentiate.

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 implies it should be used when needing to find all data references targeting an address. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives named. Context from sibling names suggests it's one of several cross-reference tools, but the description doesn't clarify when one would choose data_refs_to over code_refs_to or data_refs_from.

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