edb_string_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's behavioral profile is transparent. The description adds a useful detail: it searches function names, variable names, and source files. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate value beyond them.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for scope, one for use case, and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

The description, combined with existing annotations and schema, is mostly complete for a simple search tool. It explains what is searched and the return type. However, it could mention pagination or result format given the potential for many results, but this is not critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage per context, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter string_or_address with an example ('password' or hex address) and labeling it as 'Search target.' This adds practical guidance beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 it finds code and data references to a string or address, using verbs like 'find' and specifying resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like edb_find_references or edb_find_strings, which could cause confusion.

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 mentions it is 'useful for tracing how a particular value or string is used,' which implies usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like edb_find_strings (which finds strings in the binary).

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