Find functions that fire/handle a remote (IDA xrefs)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the exact matching rule (appears in upvalues OR constants), the per-xref payload (__fnInfo fields, 'via'), that ClassName is returned, the dependency on getgc/getupvalues/getconstants, and that the scan is capped with truncation flagged.

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 core explanation is front-loaded and dense, but the trailing metadata block is partly redundant: 'idempotency=read-only' duplicates idempotentHint and 'Safety: read-only' duplicates readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, which is wasted space in an otherwise tight definition.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so (__fnInfo contents, 'via', ClassName, truncation flag), plus it covers dependencies and a failure-path pointer to tool-schema. It stops short of explaining how limit and maxScan interact when truncation occurs, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 already documents all four parameters including defaults and the loadstring evaluation rule. The inline Signature block restates the same fields with less detail than the schema, adding essentially nothing beyond the baseline.

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+resource chain: resolve a Remote/Bindable from a Luau expression, then walk GC functions and report referrers. It explicitly names the mechanism (upvalues OR constants) and the concrete payoff (closures that FireServer/InvokeServer/connect the remote), which distinguishes it from siblings like find-function-xrefs or scan-remote-listeners.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (cross-referencing a remote endpoint) and it lists prerequisites ('Requires getgc + getupvalues/getconstants', 'active-client, resolved-target'), but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it versus scan-remote-listeners, find-event-connections, or find-function-xrefs.

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