Zdekoduj kod cysterny ADR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the core decomposition behavior and the four semantic parts, which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens on invalid input, whether the code is validated, or the exact output format, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the verb and resource, then provides the output breakdown. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks usage guidance and does not specify the response structure (e.g., field names for the four parts). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect back. It is adequate but not complete.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, including an example, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the example but adds no new constraints, format rules, or normalization behavior beyond the schema. It adds marginal context by linking the parameter to the four output parts, but nothing essential.

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 ('Rozkłada' – decomposes) and identifies the exact resource (tank code like 'L4BH'), then enumerates the four output components. This clearly differentiates it from sibling decoders such as decode_hazard_id or decode_classification_code, which target different code types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention compare_tank_codes, decode_hazard_id, or any condition that would route an agent to this tool. The intended use is only implied by the resource name, not stated.

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