Decode a Goal Planner import string

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool decodes codes, tolerates embedded text, and returns a breakdown of various elements. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only decoding tool this is sufficient.

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 sentence followed by a short tip, both front-loaded and concise. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output format (readable breakdown with sections, goals, etc.) and input tolerance. It covers key behavioral aspects for a single-parameter decoding 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and describes the 'code' parameter. The description adds practical context: 'Tolerates surrounding text — paste the whole message containing the code,' which aids agent understanding 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Decode' and the resource 'GPSHARE1:/GPSHARE2: code', and specifies the output as a readable breakdown with components like sections, goals, and dependencies. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings: craft_import_string (encoding) and list_supported_goals (listing goals).

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 gives a specific usage tip: 'Tolerates surrounding text — paste the whole message containing the code.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling differentiation is implied.

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