list_wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, or whether the list is cached). It is consistent with annotations, but doesn't go beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short sentences accomplish purpose, output detail, and a pointer to the next step. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

Given this is a simple read-only list operation with no parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly communicates the core return fields and connects to select_wallet, though it omits details like ordering or whether the list includes all network types.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description explains what the output contains (wallet IDs, types, addresses), which adds value beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 states a clear action ('List all available wallets') and specifies returned data (wallet IDs, types, addresses). It mentions switching via select_wallet, which implies scoping and distinguishes it from wallet-related siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_wallet_address.

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 provides a clear usage context: call this to list wallets, then use select_wallet to switch. This gives implicit guidance on when to use it relative to select_wallet, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative conditions (e.g., when to use get_wallet_address).

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