tool_jwt

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, errors, signature verification, or required secrets. The inclusion of header/payload/signature in the input schema while the description calls them outputs creates ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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?

While short, the description is under-specified and misuses structure by presenting outputs as a separate section without explicitly stating the tool's action. It is not front-loaded with a useful purpose statement; '[crypto] JWT' is a category label, not a description.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should fully explain return values, but it only lists names with minimal type hints. It does not explain the format of header/payload, error behavior, or the relationship between the token input and the listed outputs. The input schema's inclusion of output fields further confuses the tool's contract.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It restates parameter names and adds '(json)' type hints, but it introduces an inconsistent parameter/output split that conflicts with the flat input schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of the token parameter or the conditions for header/payload/signature.

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 is essentially a label '[crypto] JWT' with a list of parameters and outputs. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'decode', 'parse', 'verify') to state what the tool does. The outputs imply token decoding, but the purpose is not explicitly stated and does not distinguish from sibling crypto tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool name and siblings suggest it is for JWT operations, but the description offers no usage context.

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