list_nfts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses pagination behavior ('pass cursor... next_cursor omitted when wallet is fully enumerated'), GraphQL page-boundary overshoot, and response contents (display metadata + raw Move structs). This is exceptionally transparent for a list tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, response contents, backend rationale, pagination mechanics, and alternative. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how pagination works, and which sibling covers a different need. It leaves no ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 covers all 4 params with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning to limit and cursor by explaining the overshoot rationale and the next_cursor omission behavior, which goes beyond schema text. Incremental context justifies a 4.

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 opens with 'List NFTs owned by a wallet, including kiosk-stored NFTs' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly says '(Recommended for NFTs)' which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_owned_objects and list_nft_collections.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative: 'Use list_nft_collections for a cheaper count-only summary.' Also explains the GraphQL backend benefit ('no fullnode rate-limit risk') which clarifies when this tool is preferable to fullnode-backed alternatives.

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