iota_decompile

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding what the tool does beyond its basic action.

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 is front-loaded with the action verb. It avoids unnecessary detail and is highly efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain return values or expected behavior. It only says "decompile" without clarifying what the output looks like or any caveats. Combined with missing annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with on-chain data.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (Package ID, Module name), and the description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't elevate it.

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 uses the specific verb "Decompile" and identifies the resource as "Move bytecode from a published package module", clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like iota_package_info or move_build. No ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context such as needing a published package ID, nor does it specify scenarios where decompilation is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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