Deflat JavaScript control flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. 'Conservatively' and the proof condition give some insight, but it fails to disclose what happens when the static order cannot be proven, whether the input is mutated or a new value returned, and what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and includes a necessary condition. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a complex deobfuscation tool with no output schema or annotations. The description omits the return value, error behavior, and how the result should be used, making it difficult for an agent to understand the full invocation lifecycle.

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 describes 'code' only as a string, but the description adds meaning by implying it should contain a while(true)+switch dispatcher to restore. This partially compensates for 0% schema coverage, though it does not specify the expected scope of the code or return behavior.

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 a specific action ('restore') and a specific resource ('canonical while(true)+switch dispatcher'), with an explicit condition ('when its static order can be proven'). This distinguishes it from generic analysis siblings like analysis_data_flow or detect_obfuscation.

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?

Usage is implied through the condition 'when its static order can be proven', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_ast_match. It provides some context but no exclusions or comparisons.

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