koios_script_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral context. It only states that it retrieves information; it does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, potential large result sets, or what 'information' includes. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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 of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant details, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify what script information will be returned (e.g., script type, bytecode, or associated data), nor does it clarify whether both native and Plutus scripts are covered. For a tool with no output schema, the description should carry more context to compensate, but it leaves significant ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with descriptive parameters like _script_hashes, limit, offset, etc. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema – it only corroborates that lookup is by hashes. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents parameters and the description does not contribute additional meaning.

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 'Get information about specific scripts by their hashes' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('information about scripts'), with a specific qualifier ('by their hashes') that distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like koios_native_script_list. It directly states what the tool does in a concise, unambiguous manner.

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. It implies usage when you have script hashes, but does not explicitly state this or mention any sibling tools (e.g., koios_plutus_script_list for listing scripts). There is no 'use X instead' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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