decode

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It details return fields, including scheme, decoded, output_format, and hrp for bech32. It mentions per-scheme options and extra requirements for base58/base58check/base45/idna, providing behavioral context beyond a simple decode.

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 core purpose, followed by essential details in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, including the example. Despite covering many schemes and options, it remains succinct and easy to parse.

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 complexity (many schemes, no output schema), the description covers return values, options, and output format guidance. It misses explicit error handling or invalid input behavior, but overall it provides sufficient completeness for most use cases.

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 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value: it explains the role of options for base58/base62, clarifies that base58/base58check/base45/idna need the encoding extra, and advises on output_format for binary data. This goes well 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 begins with a clear verb and resource: "Decode a base-N/URL/IDNA/bech32/hexdump string back to bytes or text." It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'encode' by stating it is the inverse, leaving no ambiguity.

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 usage as the inverse of encode, but does not explicitly state when not to use it. It does provide guidance on output_format for binary payloads, which aids appropriate usage.

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