decode_calldata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait (splitting selector from arguments), but does not mention if validation occurs, input format requirements (e.g., hex prefix), or side effects. It adds value beyond schema but is minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate. It explains the action but omits critical details like input format, return value structure, error conditions, and examples. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 0% (no descriptions for parameters). The description provides context for 'data' as calldata and 'signature' as known function signature, but does not define expected formats (e.g., hex string with 0x), types, or constraints. It adds some meaning but insufficient to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.

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 action 'Decode calldata' against a known function signature, and specifies the output as 'splitting selector from arguments'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'decode_abi' which decode against full ABI, not just a signature.

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 when one has raw calldata and a known signature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'function_selector' or 'decode_abi'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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