mcp_decompress_linguistic

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes that the tool performs a reverse functor with a CRS check on roundtrip and returns crs + preview. However, it does not disclose what happens if CRS fails, permissions needed, or other side effects. This provides some transparency but is incomplete.

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 sentence and fragment, which is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, the heavy use of jargon ('functor', 'homotopy', 'CRS') may reduce clarity for less specialized agents, but it is not overly verbose.

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 complexity of a decompression tool and the lack of an output schema, the description provides some return information ('crs + result bundle preview') but lacks details on error handling, expected behavior on roundtrip failure, or prerequisite conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds the context 'reverse functor' and 'homotopy', but these are already implied by the parameter descriptions. The description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 it decompresses a phase block back to a LinguisticDiscourseBundle, using technical terms like 'reverse functor' and 'homotopy'. It implies a relationship with compression but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'mcp_compress_linguistic', though the inverse nature is clear.

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 mentions 'Phase 3' and 'roundtrip' suggesting it's part of a pipeline, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied but not clearly stated.

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