kirikiri_descramble

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'natively' and 'decode', but does not explain side effects, whether input/output are file paths or raw data, what happens on error, or what the return value is. The behavior beyond the basic operation is entirely unspecified.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded 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?

Given the simple schema (two required strings) and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to explain what input and output represent, how the mode is determined, or what the tool returns. More detail is needed, especially since there is no annotation or output schema to fill the gap.

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 has two required string parameters (input, output) with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that it decodes modes 0-2, which implies input is scrambled and output is decoded, but it does not clarify the format or meaning of these string parameters. The mention of modes is also disconnected from the schema, which has no mode parameter.

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 decodes Kirikiri scrambling modes 0, 1, or 2, using a specific verb ('Decode') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kirikiri_scramble (encode) and kirikiri_descramble_tree (tree decoding).

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it over related tools.

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