jwt_inspect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses all behavioral traits: decoding, auditing specific claim issues, and optional weak secret checking. It states it returns a structured report. However, it does not mention if the tool has any side effects or is purely read-only.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses bullet-style listing for details. Although slightly verbose, each sentence adds value. It could be tightened but remains well-structured.

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 complexity of JWT inspection, the description covers most essential aspects. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent does not know the exact structure of the returned inspection report, which is a 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: token is described as 'JWT string (three dot-separated base64url segments)' and check_weak_secrets explains its default and behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Decode and audit a JWT' and lists specific checks (algorithm issues, expiry, missing claims, suspicious kid, weak secret check), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like graphql_introspect or owasp_llm_classify.

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?

While the description implies usage for JWT analysis, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on preconditions like token format validation.

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