wallet_generate_mnemonic

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the gating requirement and the fact that this tool exposes secrets (agent-visible secrets), which is beyond what the annotation provides. It also mentions the derived address, giving a hint of the return value. No contradictions with annotations.

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 highly concise, with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage context (gating and CLI alternative). No fluff or redundant content.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool generates, includes security-relevant gating info, and gives a recommended alternative. It doesn't explicitly describe the exact output format, but the phrase 'with its first derived address' gives a solid hint. Missing only explicit guidance on handling the sensitive mnemonic, but that's partially covered by the gating note.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and the description has no need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't add any unnecessary parameter information.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a new BIP-39 mnemonic phrase with its first derived address.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_from_mnemonic (which derives from an existing mnemonic) and wallet_generate (which likely generates a different wallet object).

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 provides an alternative: 'Prefer local CLI: npx web3agent wallet generate --mnemonic.' It also states the gating condition (requires WEB3AGENT_ALLOW_AGENT_VISIBLE_SECRETS=1), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it beyond preferring the CLI, and it doesn't compare against sibling wallet tools.

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