explain_script_error

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 states that the tool returns a plain-term explanation and a concrete fix, which conveys the read-only nature (it does not modify anything). It does not explicitly declare non-mutation, but the verb 'explain' and the context strongly imply it. Minor gap: no mention of any side effects or dependencies, but the behavior is clear.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, gives examples of handled errors, and mentions the fix output. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., plain text vs JSON), but that is not critical given the absence of an output schema. The description covers all essential information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter (error_text) with 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the error string should be the 'exact error string from the node or SDK' and providing concrete error examples that clarify acceptable inputs. This enhances parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 a specific verb (explain) and resource (rusty-kaspa txscript error message) with concrete examples of error types it handles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disassemble_script, estimate_script_cost, and lookup_opcode, which have 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 implies usage context: when you have an error string and need a plain explanation with a fix. It provides examples of applicable error categories, which helps the agent identify relevant scenarios. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough.

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