deobfuscate_javascript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive behavior: it beautifies/unminifies and reports specific suspicious constructs. It does not state the operation is read-only/non-destructive or describe output shape, but the enumerated indicator list is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare restatement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and indicator list, followed by input-selection guidance. No filler, though the parenthetical indicator list is long enough to slightly dilute the front-loading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus input selection adequately for a 3-parameter tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented `indicators` toggle and the absence of routing guidance versus siblings.

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. It documents `path` and `code` with backticks and their either/or relationship, covering two of three parameters, but never mentions the `indicators` boolean, which governs whether the flagging behavior it advertises actually runs.

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 specific verbs (beautify/unminify, flag) against a specific resource (JavaScript), and enumerates the exact pattern classes it detects (eval, Function(), base64, char-code building, hex/unicode blobs, network calls, anti-debug). This clearly separates it from the binary-focused siblings like radare2, ghidra_decompile, and disassemble.

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?

"Provide either a file `path` or inline `code`" usefully resolves the mutually exclusive input choice, so invocation context is implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., use this rather than extract_strings for obfuscated JS), and no stated prerequisites.

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