cocos_decompress_uuid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the transformation behavior (23-char to 36-char dashed), but does not disclose error handling, input validation, performance characteristics, or other behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent or has side effects.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details (input/output lengths and format). Every word earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple transformation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the 36-char dashed UUID output), the description is adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on error cases or edge behaviors that would be helpful for robust use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a '23-char short' UUID, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it does not detail format constraints, examples, or validation rules for the short UUID.

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: it reverses cocos_compress_uuid, transforming a 23-character short UUID into a 36-character dashed UUID. This is specific (verb: 'reverse', resource: 'cocos_compress_uuid'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the specific sibling 'cocos_compress_uuid'.

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 states when to use this tool: to reverse cocos_compress_uuid. It implies usage context by referencing the sibling tool, but does not specify when not to use it or alternatives beyond that sibling.

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