radiant_parse_glyph_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it parses and decodes, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention whether it mutates anything, requires authentication, or has side effects. The lack of explicit safety information is a gap, but the read-only implication is reasonably 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 concise, with a single sentence that includes a parenthetical clarification. It front-loads the main action and provides context, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient for calling it. However, it does not describe the return value or any potential errors, which could be important for a parsing tool. Overall, it is adequate but lacks details about the parsed result.

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 describes 'script_hex' as 'Script in hexadecimal', which covers the parameter's meaning. The description adds that it is 'raw script hex' and clarifies the context (transaction output), but does not provide format or example. Given high schema coverage (100%), baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra value.

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 action ('Parse a Glyph envelope') and the resource ('raw script hex'), and explains the purpose ('decode token metadata from a transaction output'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic scripts like 'decode_script', though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 the tool is used to decode token metadata from transaction outputs, but does not state when to use it vs. alternatives like 'get_token_metadata' or 'decode_script'. No explicit exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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