decode_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is 'Offline' (no network calls) and accepts both number and string inputs. It does not mention potential errors or limits, but for a simple mapping, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. Every word adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information. It is optimally concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. The '⇄ its name' hint suggests bidirectionality but does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the corresponding name or number). For a tool with minimal parameters and no output schema, this omission leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The parameter 'result' is described in the schema as 'a result code number or name'. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., '0/tesSUCCESS'), which clarify the expected format beyond the schema's minimal description. This provides practical guidance for the agent.

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 transaction engine result codes between numbers and names, with specific examples like '0/tesSUCCESS'. This distinguishes it from sibling decode tools such as decode_hook_can_emit and decode_tx_blob, which handle different domains.

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 marks the tool as 'Offline', implying it is a safe, instantaneous lookup with no network cost. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the tool's specific domain (transaction result codes) makes the distinction implicit among the many sibling tools.

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