technocore_decrypt_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds an important security-relevant trait: the decrypted plaintext is UNTRUSTED and encryption does not authenticate the sender. This goes beyond the obvious 'decrypt' action, though it does not cover failure modes or return format.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the security caveat earns its place by giving essential context for handling the output.

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 simple two-parameter decryption tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input, the action, and a critical trust caveat about the plaintext. It does not explicitly state the return value or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for an operation this straightforward.

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 coverage is 50%: room_key is documented as '64 hex characters', but line has no schema description. The phrase 'one E2E line' clarifies that line is the encrypted input, adding some meaning, but the description does not substantially compensate for the undocumented parameter or add format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Decrypt one E2E line.' It is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as technocore_encrypt_line or technocore_read_room, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to decrypt a single end-to-end encrypted line. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the related encrypt_line tool.

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