utmt-decompile-code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns decompiled GML text and is unavailable for YYC-compiled games, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as prerequisites (cliPath), potential failure modes, and whether the data file is modified (though 'decompile' implies read-only). This adds some value but not rich transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and output, the second adds a key limitation. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the return value and a major limitation, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema and annotations. However, it lacks guidance on when to select this tool over sibling tools and does not mention the optional cliPath context, making it only partially complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, as all three parameters (cliPath, codeName, dataFilePath) have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('Decompile') and identifies the exact resource ('a code entry from a GameMaker data file') and output ('GML source'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like utmt-list-entities or utmt-get-entity, 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention 'use when you need GML code' or exclude other cases, and the YYC limitation is the only contextual hint. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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