decode_obj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action ('decode') but doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or what the decoded object structure looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the core function.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the decoding target ('msgpack bytes') and outcome ('to an object').

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 the complexity of decoding operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the decoded object's format, potential errors, or how parameters like 'network' and 'itemsPerPage' affect the decoding process. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to understand its full behavior.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Decode msgpack bytes to an object' clearly states the verb ('decode') and resource ('msgpack bytes'), but it's vague about the specific object type or context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'decode_address' or 'decode_signed_transaction', which perform similar decoding operations but on different data types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools involving decoding (e.g., 'decode_address', 'decode_signed_transaction'), the description doesn't specify that this is for msgpack-encoded data specifically or mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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