decompile_batch

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and closed-world behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description still adds useful operational context: parallel execution, per-function and total character caps, and file persistence semantics ('kept unless overwrite=true'). It does not add auth or rate-limit details, but those are less central here.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries operational detail. The semicolon-heavy first sentence is dense but not wasteful, and the single-function alternative is placed clearly at the end.

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 five-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the important behavioral complexities: parallel batch decompilation, character caps, file output, overwrite semantics, and the single-function alternative. Remaining details such as exact return formatting are minor and partly handled by the schema and annotations.

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 all five parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying output capping and that out writes uncapped results to a file; this is useful for understanding the out/filter/max_functions interaction even if it does not restate every parameter.

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 and resource ('Decompile many functions') and explicitly names the single-function sibling ('For one use decompile'), making the distinction from decompile clear. It also adds the name-filter matching condition, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives the key alternative for a single function and explains the out=<file.c> mode for uncapped bulk output versus the capped default behavior. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions such as out not combining with filter or max_functions, leaving those constraints to the schema.

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