analizar_jwt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: no signature verification, detection of expired tokens and algorithm vulnerabilities. It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but as a decode tool, it is safe. Adds useful context beyond the 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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, a list of features, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context), the description need not explain return values. It covers the parameter thoroughly and details what the tool shows and detects. No missing information for a JWT analysis tool.

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 parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It provides a clear description of the 'token' parameter: 'JWT in format header.payload.signature', adding meaning beyond the schema's type 'string'. This is helpful for correct invocation.

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 tool decodes and analyzes a JWT without verifying the signature, listing specific outputs (header, payload, claims) and detections (expired tokens, vulnerabilities). It is specific and distinguishes from any sibling tools (none are JWT-related).

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 for inspecting JWT content (decode and analyze) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.

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