code_obfuscate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversibility of obfuscation, the limited capability of beautify, and explicitly prohibits use for hiding malicious logic. This provides essential behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention output format or error handling.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential caveats and a prohibition. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler text.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main operations, their limitations, and a critical safety restriction. It is complete enough for the agent to understand purpose and constraints, though it could explicitly mention the output type (transformed code) and the fact that obfuscation is deterministic.

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 low (33%, only 'preset' has a description). The description compensates by explaining the 'action' parameter semantics (obfuscate vs. beautify) and their different behaviors, which is absent from the schema. 'code' is self-evident, and 'preset' already has a schema description, so the overall parameter understanding is adequate.

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 clearly states the tool performs JS code obfuscation and beautification, with specific details: obfuscation is one-way and uses javascript-obfuscator, while beautify only restores formatting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_format and encode_* by naming the exact operations and their effects.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'obfuscate' for obfuscation and 'beautify' for formatting restoration, noting that beautify does not recover obfuscated semantics. It also adds a usage restriction ('禁止用于隐藏恶意逻辑'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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