websex_jwt_decode

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 one genuinely important trait: it does not verify signatures, which prevents the agent from over-trusting output. It does not cover error behavior on malformed tokens or the scope of decoded fields, though an output schema exists to carry return-value detail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key caveat about signature verification is placed immediately after the action.

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?

For a one-parameter decode tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential caveat an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting results. It could still note routing to the audit siblings, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is one parameter (token) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically adds the only semantic context by naming 'JWT header and payload'. The parameter is self-evident from the tool name, so this is minimally adequate rather than rich.

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 (Decode) and resource (JWT header and payload fields), and the trailing clause carves out scope versus a full verifier. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (websex_jwt_audit, websex_jwt_deep_probe), so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus websex_jwt_audit or websex_jwt_deep_probe, nor any prerequisites. The 'without claiming signature verification' clause hints at a lightweight, non-verifying decode, but the agent must infer that this is the simple decoding option.

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