defender_decode_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the recursive decoding behavior (up to five rounds), the meaning of the `rounds` and `capped` outputs, and the fact that the evidence inventory already carries decoded fields. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't describe error cases or exact output structure.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action and format first, then input flexibility, then behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only decoding tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the recursive decoding behavior, the output fields (`rounds`, `capped`), and the relationship to the evidence inventory. It doesn't describe the exact return value structure, but there is no output schema and the description gives enough for an agent to understand what will happen.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds context about accepted input forms (full command line, any flag spelling, bare base64), which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond what the schema's description already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Decode'), a precise resource ('PowerShell -EncodedCommand payload'), and the exact format (base64 of UTF-16LE). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on decoding rather than retrieval or management operations, so an agent can clearly identify when this tool is relevant.

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 explicitly says 'Use it instead of decoding by hand,' which gives a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the accepted input forms (full command line, any flag spelling, bare base64), which is practical usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the sibling list shows no other decoding tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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