omni_deobfuscate_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: it strips control-flow-flattening loops, resolves string tables, and emits formatted source, and 'instant' implies a synchronous, side-effect-free transformation. It omits failure behavior for unsupported or unrecognized obfuscation, any size or rate limits, and confirmation that the clean code is returned in the response.

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 tight sentences with the primary action and supported targets front-loaded, followed by the specific techniques applied. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, schema-fully-described utility, the description covers what the tool does and the transformations it applies, and 'formats clean source code' implicitly answers the return-value question even without an output schema. Minor gaps are error handling and any constraints on input size.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the enum values and the 'auto' default, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's mention of Lua/JavaScript/Python merely echoes the enum and adds no meaning about how 'auto' detection works or what happens when detection fails. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('deobfuscation of a Lua, JavaScript, or Python code string') and lists the concrete transformations performed (CFF loops, string tables, formatting). It clearly operates on source text rather than binaries or samples, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as omni_modern_unpacker or omni_deep_reverse.

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 scope is implied by 'code string' and the named languages, which steers an agent away from the binary/sample-oriented siblings. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on when to prefer omni_modern_unpacker or omni_deep_reverse, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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