Zdekoduj numer Kemlera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly communicates that the tool is a read-only decoder that produces an explanation of digits and the X prefix. However, it does not mention the output format, error behavior for invalid codes, or edge cases like unknown code patterns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, examples, and a key semantic detail. There is no filler or repetition; every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only decoder with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It gives the input format and the kind of explanation produced. The only missing piece is a clearer statement of the return value shape, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already fully documents the single parameter with the same examples. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the X prefix relates to water reactivity, which is relevant input interpretation knowledge beyond a bare schema description. This is a small but real addition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wyjaśnia' / explains) tied to a specific resource: the Kemler hazard identification number, with concrete examples ('336', 'X462'). It also mentions the exact elements of the explanation (digit meanings and the X prefix), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like decode_tank_code and decode_classification_code.

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 implies the tool is for Kemler numbers and not for tank codes or classification codes, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of a sibling. There is no 'use X for tank codes' style guidance. An agent must infer the usage boundary from the resource name.

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