jwt_decoder

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it decodes and displays specific parts (header, payload, expiry) and explicitly states it does not verify signature. This covers the main behavioral traits, though potential privacy concerns of displaying token contents are not mentioned.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output, and a critical limitation. No extraneous words or information.

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 decoding tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers functionality, output, and a key constraint. No output schema is needed, and the description suffices for confident use.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description of the 'token' parameter, including the optional Bearer prefix. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool decodes JWT tokens and displays header, payload, and expiry status. It also clarifies it does not verify the signature, which distinguishes it from security-focused tools. Among siblings like base64_encode_decode and hash_generator, its purpose is distinct.

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 usage for inspecting JWT tokens and cautions that signature verification is not performed, which is a key guideline. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context and sibling list make the appropriate use case clear.

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