explain_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core operation (decoding and opcode breakdown) but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only vs. destructive), execution time characteristics, or whether the tool performs validation on the script. Given it has an output schema, return values need not be described, but disposition hints are missing.

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 appropriately concise with clear front-loading of the primary purpose in the first sentence. The Args section follows a standard docstring format that efficiently maps parameters to descriptions. No sentences are wasted, though the structure relies on the Args section to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers the minimum required information. However, given the lack of annotations and zero schema coverage, it lacks contextual completeness regarding safety guarantees (critical for blockchain tools), error handling behavior, or links to Bitcoin Script specifications that would aid an agent in successful invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate for parameter documentation. The Args section provides 'Script in hex format' for hex_script, which adds basic type context beyond the schema's title field. However, this is minimal—it does not specify expected length, format constraints (e.g., must be even-length hex), or examples of valid Bitcoin Scripts.

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 'Decode[s] a Bitcoin Script hex and break down the opcodes,' providing specific verbs (decode, break down), resource (Bitcoin Script hex), and distinguishing detail (opcodes) that differentiates it from sibling tools like decode_raw_transaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus analyze_transaction or other decoding 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 such as decode_raw_transaction or analyze_transaction. It lacks prerequisites, expected input formats beyond 'hex,' or exclusions that would help an agent select this tool correctly in a workflow.

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