decode_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether decoding modifies any state, what happens if the CAN ID has no known signal definitions, or any rate limits or permissions required. The lack of output format description also reduces transparency.

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 very concise with two sentences and a compact parameter list. Every word adds value, no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs but fails to specify return values or output structure (e.g., decoded signals or errors). Lacking that, the description is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate results.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meanings for both parameters: can_id is 'CAN message ID' and data_hex is 'Frame payload as a hex string' with an example. This adds significant value beyond the schema's property names.

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 action ('Decode a raw CAN frame') and scope ('against all known signal definitions for that CAN ID'). It is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_message or capture, which do not focus on decoding known signals.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_message or track_signal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., signal definitions must exist), limitations, or scenarios where the tool is not appropriate.

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