describe_opcode

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond that: that it returns the inputs/fields/example for an opcode and is a prerequisite for add_block. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's function and primary usage. It has no wasted words, though the first sentence is a fragment rather than a complete, polished phrase.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of guidance on valid opcode values, but that is somewhat covered by sibling tools like list_opcodes.

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 has no description for the single 'opcode' parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It only says 'for one opcode' and does not explain valid values, format, or where to obtain an opcode identifier. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 states the resource ('one opcode') and the kind of information provided ('Inputs/fields/example'), which is clear enough to distinguish from list_opcodes and add_block. It is not a full sentence, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to run this tool before add_block to get parameters right. It provides clear usage context, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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