wallet_generate

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is supplemented with critical behavioral details: the private key is shown only once and never stored, and the tool is gated by an environment variable. This adds security context and return-behavior information that the annotation alone does not convey, especially since no output schema exists.

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 consists of three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, describing the return and security, and providing usage guidance. There is no fluff or redundant wording, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, security/privacy traits, and an alternative command. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 has zero parameters in the schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter usage. Per the rubric, the baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is required.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Generate a new random Ethereum wallet.' It explicitly mentions the return of address and private key, distinguishing it from siblings like wallet_generate_mnemonic. The purpose is immediately understood and not conflated with other wallet operations.

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?

It explicitly states 'Prefer local CLI: npx web3agent wallet generate,' providing a clear alternative and indicating when to avoid the tool. The gating requirement (WEB3AGENT_ALLOW_AGENT_VISIBLE_SECRETS=1) informs the agent of the environment variable needed, giving concrete usage context.

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