deobfuscate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions caching as a behavioral trait. It doesn't disclose other important aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, performance implications, error handling, or what 'caches result' entails (e.g., cache duration, invalidation). The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence containing two key actions and a caching note. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or provide context for when and why to use it. For a tool with multiple boolean flags and no structured documentation, more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'code' or 'filePath' should contain, what 'unbundle', 'returnCode', 'mangle', 'jsx', or 'skipVendor' do, or their interactions. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('unpacks/deobfuscates') and resource ('minified code'), plus mentions caching. It distinguishes from siblings like 'format_code' or 'analyze_structure' by focusing on deobfuscation rather than formatting or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_symbol_source' might overlap).

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 mentions caching but doesn't specify when to use it over other tools like 'get_module' or 'get_symbol_source' for similar tasks. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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