decrypt_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Changes nothing' largely restates that. It does add genuine context beyond annotations: the vault-must-be-open prerequisite and a description of the exact encrypted path shape an agent will encounter. Return values are covered by the output 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before prerequisites and the sibling contrast. Slightly redundant in re-citing the encrypted path example that the schema already provides, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the one non-obvious operational constraint (vault must be open), the expected input form, the inverse tool, and the practical purpose. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented with examples ('Taxes', 'd/AB/CDEF.../name.c9r'). The description repeats the same path example rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource — turning an encrypted vault path (e.g. 'd/AB/CDEF.../name.c9r') back into the real path of the file or folder. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'locate', which performs the inverse, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It states concrete use cases (identifying which file a sync conflict or backup entry refers to) and names the alternative tool 'locate' as the inverse operation, plus the prerequisite that the vault must be open. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusion, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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