Decode protobuf (deep)

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses key behaviors: keeps all field interpretations, decompresses gzip/zlib/zstd, unwraps gRPC frames. Does not mention any side effects or limits, but as a decode-only tool, these are minor omissions.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core function. Every sentence adds value: features, inputs, output option. Ideal conciseness.

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?

No output schema, but description explains output format (all interpretations per field, structured tree with json). Could specify more about data structure, but sufficient for a decoding tool. Covers input options and main behaviours.

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 83%, and description adds context beyond schema: explains relationship between 'id' and exchange, and 'output=json' yields structured tree. Parameters are well-documented with clear purposes.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'decode' and resource 'protobuf', and highlights unique features like keeping all interpretations, decompression, and gRPC unwrapping. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'protobuf_diff' and 'classify_blob'.

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?

Explicitly states input types: captured exchange body, raw hex/base64. Also mentions output options. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but context is clear for a decoding tool. Slight deduction for lack of alternatives.

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