output_get

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 indicates a read-only operation (retrieve) without any side effects, which is appropriate for a GET-style tool. Additional behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits are not mentioned, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need.

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: first defines purpose and format, second states what info is retrieved. No unnecessary words; 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, identifier format, and returned information. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 specifies the outpoint format as 'txid:vout', which adds critical semantic meaning beyond the schema's type string. This is essential for correct invocation, and it compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'Bitcoin UTXO', and the specific identifier format 'txid:vout'. It lists what information is retrieved (spend status, value, script details), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with addresses, blocks, or transactions.

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 use this tool to retrieve UTXO information by outpoint, providing clear positive guidance. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names imply when other tools are appropriate, making the guidance adequate.

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