parse_envelope

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 the tool parses data but doesn't cover error handling (e.g., invalid hex), performance traits (e.g., speed or limits), or side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized for quick understanding.

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 (parsing binary data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return format but lacks details on error cases, input validation, or behavioral traits, which are important for a parsing tool with unstructured inputs.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that data_hex is 'Hex-encoded envelope data', clarifying the format and purpose, though it could detail constraints like length or valid characters. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this compensation is strong but not exhaustive.

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 specific action ('Parse') and target resource ('BTCD envelope structure from raw bytes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like decode_op_return or read_document. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 like decode_op_return or verify_timestamp. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing raw bytes from a specific source, and doesn't mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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