decompile_type

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 discloses the output form (full C# source code), which is useful, but says nothing about preconditions (e.g., whether the assembly must be loaded first), failure modes for obfuscated or unresolvable types, or size/limits of the emitted source.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is arguably too terse for a two-parameter tool where a clause on prerequisites or output scope would be inexpensive to add.

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?

The schema fully covers the two inputs and the description states the return form, so the core is present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the relationship to load_assembly and error behavior for unresolvable types remain unstated, leaving an agent to guess at prerequisites.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (assembly key, full Namespace.ClassName). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 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 gives a specific verb (decompile) and resource (a type), plus the output form (full C# source code). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling decompile_method, which targets a single method rather than a type, though it does not name that sibling.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is the whole-type counterpart to decompile_method and inspect_type.

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