decode

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it explains how decoded bytes are rendered per output_format, notes special handling for bech32/bech32m (returns hrp), and mentions the need for the 'encoding' extra for certain schemes.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds essential usage details. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the main aspects: decoding process, output format choices, and special scheme behaviors. Minor gap: precise format of the 'data' input (string expected) is implied but not explicit. However, given schema has it as string, it's acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers data (implied encoded string), scheme (via enumeration mention), output_format (text/hex/base64), and options (alphabet, hrp, etc.), providing necessary semantics beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Decode a base-N/URL/IDNA/bech32/hexdump string back to bytes or text' and notes it is the inverse of encode, distinguishing it from the sibling encode tool.

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 clearly indicates it is the inverse of encode, providing context for when to use it. It also gives guidance on output_format selection for binary vs. text purposes, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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