jwt_decode

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

The description adds value by detailing the local analysis and security warnings (expired token, 'none' algorithm). However, the annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which contradict the tool's expected read-only behavior. The description does not mention any destructive side effects, creating a mismatch that reduces trust.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, local operation, and output elements (header, payload, expiry, algorithm, security warnings). It lacks details on error handling or return format, which a fully complete description might include, but it suffices for this context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter 'token' already described in the schema, the description adds context about local decoding and output details but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 decodes and analyzes JWT tokens locally. It specifies the resource (JWT token) and actions (decode, analyze). Among sibling tools focused on network scanning and other security tasks, this tool is distinct and unambiguous.

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 implies local use ('without sending it anywhere') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context suggests it's for local JWT analysis, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given.

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