aries_bytecode

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Fetch') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or behavior when inputs are invalid. With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden but falls short.

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 efficiently convey the main purpose and a usage tip. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers basic functionality but omits return format, error conditions, and scope (Alkanes contracts). It is minimally adequate for a simple fetch tool but lacks 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 mentions {block, tx} in the template, explaining that they identify the contract, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the optional blockTag parameter is not documented, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 it fetches raw WASM bytecode by block and tx. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'raw WASM bytecode' are specific, and the tool name 'bytecode' reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like aries_contract_meta which likely returns metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to pair this tool with the alternative CLI for disassembly, indicating a use case. However, it does not exclude other scenarios or mention other sibling tools like aries_contract_meta as alternatives.

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