decode_op_return

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parsing and returning a dictionary, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or limitations (e.g., what happens if the hex is invalid or if UTF-8 decoding fails). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks details on usage context, error handling, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, more behavioral information would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'script_hex: OP_RETURN script as hex string.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide examples or constraints (e.g., expected format or length), so it's not fully comprehensive.

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's purpose: 'Parse OP_RETURN data from script hex.' It specifies the verb ('parse') and resource ('OP_RETURN data'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'parse_envelope' or 'search_op_returns', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid OP_RETURN script, or compare it to siblings like 'encode_op_return' or 'search_op_returns'. Without this context, users might struggle to select the right tool in appropriate scenarios.

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