decode_uint64

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 action ('decode') but does not explain what happens on success or failure, error conditions, rate limits, or permissions required. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (decoding operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'bytes' and 'network' or clarifying the purpose of 'itemsPerPage' in a decoding context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 bytes to a uint64' clearly states the verb ('decode') and resource ('bytes to a uint64'), but it's vague about the specific context or format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'decode_address' or 'bytes_to_bigint', which perform similar decoding operations on different data types or outputs.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'decode_address' or 'bytes_to_bigint', leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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