decrypt_message

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 only states the core function and omits critical details like error behavior on wrong key, required encryption format, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a decryption tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is maximally concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides no contextual guidance about the expected decrypted output, failure modes, or security considerations. A decryption tool needs more context to be used correctly, especially in an agentic setting.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (encryptedMessage and encryptionKey), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra information beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (decrypting) and resource (encrypted message), which distinguishes it from the sibling encrypt_message. However, it is very close to the tool name itself, adding little specificity beyond that.

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 decryption but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the encrypt_message sibling, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing the correct key. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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