analyze_jwt

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the critical limitation that the signature is NOT verified, that the server has no key, that claims are untrusted, that it is local-only with nothing transmitted, and even the cost profile (free, no quota, instant).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then limitations, then operational facts. Every sentence earns its place and none repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Combined with the explicit security caveat and cost/network facts, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents that the token may carry an optional Bearer prefix. The description adds no further syntax or format detail for the single parameter, so the baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Decode) and resource (JWT) and enumerates exactly what it reports: algorithm, claims, expiry, and suspicious header parameters (alg:none, jku, jwk, x5u). This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling decode_payload without opening either schema.

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?

Scope is implied (JWT analysis only), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among siblings like decode_payload or parse_url. The 'treat every claim as untrusted' line guides interpretation of output rather than tool selection, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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