engram_decompress

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 doesn't state that this is a stateless/non-mutating transform, nor what happens on malformed or non-ES input, nor any size limits — all of which matter for an inverse-decoding 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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; nothing superfluous.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it does state the output type (natural language), but failure modes, input validity requirements, and its relationship to engram_compress are absent.

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 0% and the single 'text' parameter is undocumented. The description's reference to 'ES' implies the input should be Engram Shorthand, but it never ties that to the parameter or describes acceptable formats, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Decompress') and a specific resource ('Engram Shorthand (ES)'), and clarifies the output form ('back to natural language'). It doesn't explicitly cite the inverse sibling engram_compress, but the phrasing makes the inverse relationship inferable.

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 statement of when to use this instead of engram_compress or any other sibling, and no preconditions (e.g., that the input must be valid ES). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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