decompile_jar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a side effect (writing to a target directory) and specifies that it returns analytics, tree output, and logs. However, it omits details about overwrite behavior, required permissions, or the nature of the analytics/logs. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the primary action and key outputs. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no irrelevant content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does a good job indicating what is returned (analytics, tree output, logs). It omits some operational details like decompiler auto-detection and default output directory behavior, but these are covered in the schema. Given the tool's complexity, the description provides a solid, complete enough overview.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add detail about parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Decompiles a Java .jar file'), the resource ('.jar file'), and the destination ('into a target directory'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying it produces analytics, tree output, and logs, which is unique compared to compilation or analysis 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where a sibling tool (e.g., analyze_decompilation_output) would be more appropriate, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and basic purpose.

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