decode_instruction

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it decodes into a readable format, without mentioning any caveats, required dependencies (e.g., IDL/program_id), output structure, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it could arguably provide a bit more specificity about the output format. Still, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is quite thin for a tool with four parameters. It does not explain what the decoded output looks like, how idl and program_id interact, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete information for successful invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the optional idl, program_id, and instruction_index. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: decoding transaction instructions into a readable format. It uses a specific verb 'decode' and identifies the resource ('transaction instructions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like simulate_transaction or decode_account, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decode_account or simulate_transaction. The description only states what it does, offering no context or exclusions.

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