gb_opcode_table

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only action ('Show') but does not explicitly state safety or side-effect profile. It also doesn't mention output format or error cases. Adequate for a simple display tool, but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and alternative. No wasted words, clear structure.

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 it's a display tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and alternative. It doesn't describe output structure, but that's not critical for an agent to decide when to use it. Minor gap but mostly complete.

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 100% and the block parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool shows the structural opcode map, listing specific blocks and placeholder definitions. It explicitly names the alternative gb_decode_opcode for concrete bytes, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to reason about encoding patterns' and directs to gb_decode_opcode for concrete bytes, giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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