Jwt Inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the tool is fully offline, makes zero network requests, and that the target parameter exists only for scoping and ownership, not for contact. It also discloses that the argument policy denies certain modes, providing additional behavioral detail that an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides safety and scoping details. It is slightly verbose due to the repetition of 'not because jwt_tool contacts it' and the extensive denial list, but the structure is logical and the content is relevant, so it does not feel bloated.

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 the simple schema (two strings, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, its safety bounds, the role of each parameter, and its place in the workflow. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 has no descriptions, but the description explicitly explains the purpose of 'target' (the in-scope asset the token came from, used for scope checking and finding ownership) and clarifies that it is not contacted. The 'token' parameter is self-evident from the tool's purpose of decoding a JWT, so both parameters are well covered.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Decode a JWT and report its algorithm, claims, and timestamps.' It also distinguishes this tool from exploit-oriented actions by explicitly stating it does not forge, crack, or replay tokens, which differentiates it from sibling tools in the same domain.

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 implicit when-to-use guidance by focusing on decoding and inspection, and explicitly covers when-not-to-use by listing denied modes (forging, cracking, replaying) and stating that proving a JWT flaw is an exploit-phase action. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the boundaries are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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