Inspect a JWT (decode only)

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

No annotations provided, but description explains what it does (decode header/payload, report signature presence and expiration) and what it does not do (no signature verification). This is sufficient transparency for a simple decode 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, limitations, and behavioral details. It could be improved by describing the output format (e.g., returns decoded JSON), but it's largely complete for a simple inspection tool.

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 schema describes the 'token' parameter as 'compact JWT (header.payload.signature)'. The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool decodes the header and payload and reports on signature and expiration, adding context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it decodes a JWT's header and payload, reports signature presence and expiration, and explicitly says it does not verify signature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base64_transform, hash_text, etc.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Does NOT verify the signature — decoding only,' which tells when not to use it. It provides clear context but does not name an alternative tool for verification.

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