parse_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic action but omits details like error handling for invalid hex or what constitutes valid input. The output schema partially compensates, but the description lacks behavioral depth.

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 a single sentence, highly concise with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, and it conveys the essential purpose without waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It explains the input and result clearly. One minor gap: it could mention that the output is a structured representation of opcodes, but the output schema likely covers this.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'script_hex' described as 'Script as hex string.' The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a script'), and clearly states the output ('its opcodes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'address_to_script' or 'create_p2pkh_script', which involve creation or conversion rather than parsing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The usage is implied from the name and description, but there is no guidance on when parsing a script is necessary or when to prefer other tools. The context is clear enough for a simple utility.

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