Find functions that reference a global or method by name

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuine context: it requires getgc/getconstants, caps the scan, flags truncation, and reports the exact hit fields (script source, line, function name, pointer). It also notes 'likely' matches, warning the agent results are heuristic rather than exact call edges.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, followed by requirements, output, and metadata in a structured order. It is dense but each clause carries signal; the phase/cost/safety metadata block is slightly boilerplate-heavy but not redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the hit shape (owning script source, line, function name, pointer) and the truncation behavior. It also covers requirements, active-client precondition, and failure guidance, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents name/limit/maxScan/threadContext. The description's restated signature and examples add no syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find functions that ... call or reference this global or method by name') and explains the underlying mechanism (string constants in Luau bytecode). The IDA 'xref-to-import equivalent' framing tells the agent exactly what class of tool this is and distinguishes it from the many other xref 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?

Gives clear intended context ('pivot from a sensitive API to all the code that uses it') and prerequisites ('Requires getgc + getconstants'). It does not explicitly contrast against the closest siblings (find-string-xrefs, find-constant-xref, find-upvalue-xref) or state when-not to use it, so routing between xref variants remains partly inferential.

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