kirikiri_descramble_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and file types, without mentioning side effects such as in-place rewriting (which is only hinted at in the output param schema), prerequisites, or failure behavior. The description adds little beyond what the name already conveys.

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 front-loads the core action and scope. It contains no redundant words and is easy to parse. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful context, so it is efficient but not exemplary.

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 batch operation that processes multiple file types across a folder, the description is notably thin. It lacks details on input/output behavior, directory recursion, error handling, and whether files are overwritten. There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient context to anticipate the tool's full behavior.

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 only 50% (only 'output' has a description), and the tool description does not explain the input parameter or add any parameter-level semantics. The description mentions 'a folder' but does not map it to the input parameter, nor does it elaborate on how 'output' interacts with the operation. The description fails to compensate for the missing input parameter documentation.

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 ('Descramble') and resource ('all .ks/.tjs/.txt/.csv/.ini under a folder'), specifying both the file types and the folder scope. The 'tree' suffix and the mention of 'under a folder' effectively distinguish it from the sibling kirikiri_descramble, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 batch/folder usage via 'all ... under a folder' and the 'tree' suffix, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the singular kirikiri_descramble or other siblings. There is no direct alternative or exclusion mentioned, so usage is only implied rather than clearly guided.

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