goplus_signature_decode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the tool's safe, read-only nature implicitly through 'decode' and the protective purpose, but it doesn't detail the output format, any limitations on data size, or how it handles invalid input. More behavioral context would be helpful.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and object, with a helpful parenthetical benefit. No wasted words.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should have provided more context about what the decoded result looks like or any prerequisites. The description is adequate for basic selection but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and edge 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with full descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description's mention of 'signature/permit data' aligns with inputData and contractAddress, but it doesn't clarify the interplay between parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline is acceptable.

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 'Decode' and identifies the resource as 'signature/permit data', clearly stating it's for understanding what you're signing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_transaction_data or sign_message, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'to understand what you're signing' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the parenthetical '(prevents blind signing attacks)' adds a specific security use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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