disassemble_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond a simple summary: it follows the exact engine parser semantics and flags disabled/reserved opcodes and truncated pushes. It does not cover invalid-hex handling or output shape, but the disclosed edge cases add genuine value.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first states the core function and resource; the second adds important edge-case behavior. Everything present earns its place and 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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough detail for an agent to know what input to supply and what special cases to expect. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but 'into opcodes and data pushes' already implies the primary output shape.

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% because the only parameter, script_hex, is described as hex and whether 0x-prefixing is allowed. The description adds the 'from hex' framing but does not materially expand on the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Disassemble') and a specific resource ('Kaspa script from hex into opcodes and data pushes'). The action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like estimate_script_cost, explain_script_error, and lookup_opcode.

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 gives a clear context for use: disassembling a script into its parser-visible opcodes and pushes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the verb and scope make the intended use obvious enough.

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