Resolve Nostr identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations by explicitly rejecting nsec and encrypted private-key identifiers, which is not inferable from the annotations or schema.

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, front-loaded with the verb and subject, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value: accepted formats and rejected formats.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations are strong, but the description does not explain the 'expected' parameter or describe the output shape. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without a clear picture of what the resolution returns (e.g., a pubkey, event id, or type indicator), making the description incomplete for smooth invocation.

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 partially covers 'identifier' by listing valid formats, but it completely ignores the 'expected' parameter and its enum values (auto, pubkey, event). The meaning of 'expected' and its effect on decoding is left unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about a key input.

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 uses the specific verb 'Decode' and enumerates exactly which identifier formats are accepted (hex, npub, nprofile, note, nevent, naddr), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that fetch profiles, events, or query notes. It also states what is rejected (nsec, encrypted keys), further sharpening the tool's purpose.

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 context makes it clear this tool is for decoding identifiers before fetching related data, and the listed sibling tools (get_profile, get_event) imply an alternative workflow. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' comparison, only the implicit separation of concerns via the description and sibling names.

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