Get module source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context (cost=medium, Phase: observe, Produces: structured-observation) but also restates what annotations already say ("idempotency=read-only", "Safety: read-only"), and the failure guidance just redirects to tool-schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining metadata is compact semicolon-separated key-value pairs. It is slightly redundant (idempotency=read-only duplicating the annotation) but earns most of its space and is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, yet "Produces: structured-observation" is vague about what a decompiled-source result actually looks like. Safety and prerequisites are covered, but the agent is left guessing about output shape for a decompile operation.

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%, so both modulePath and threadContext are already fully documented in the schema. The description's "Signature" line repeats the parameter names and types without adding format, default, or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Decompile a specific ModuleScript by path") with clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get-script-content or get-script-bytecode that return raw/bytecode rather than decompiled source. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Provides prerequisites ("Requires: active-client, resolved-target") and a phase/cost hint ("Phase: observe; cost=medium"), which implies when it fits in a workflow. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not guidance, so an agent must infer that this is the decompilation path versus get-script-content or disassemble-function.

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