get_connected_wallet

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 makes clear this is a read (Return) and the session is short-lived, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't say what happens when no session exists (returns null, empty, error?), whether this triggers any wallet interaction, or whether calling it has 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?

A single ten-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a no-argument read tool.

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 zero-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the return shape and the no-session behavior, which the agent would need to handle correctly.

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 tool takes no parameters, which is the correct baseline 4 for zero-param tools. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are required by describing a simple state read.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (current short-lived Base wallet session). Distinguishes itself from the sibling connect_base_wallet by being a read of the existing session rather than an establishment action, though it doesn't explicitly name connect_base_wallet as the alternative.

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 phrase 'if any' implies this is a read-only check with no side effects, and the lack of parameters suggests no arguments are needed. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to connect_base_wallet or other wallet tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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