onboard

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: generates a wallet, writes config with 0600 permissions, mints a key shown once, and notes idempotency behavior. It also explains the non-custodial budget freezing, providing deep behavioral context.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, process, security, return values, alternatives, idempotency. It is front-loaded with the key 'BOOTSTRAP' identifier and structured logically.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned (wallet address, key, next steps). It covers prerequisites, workflow, security, and idempotency, making it fully self-contained for a complex setup 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, so the schema already provides complete coverage. The description mentions CLI flags (--import/--create) but these are external, not for this tool, so baseline 4 applies.

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 'BOOTSTRAP' and explicitly states it works without an existing key, being the one tool that self-onboards. It details the full onboarding sequence (wallet generation, SIWE, key minting, config save) and clearly differentiates from sibling task-oriented tools.

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 specifies when to use (when no existing key) and provides next steps (post_task → ...), making the intended workflow clear. It also names the CLI alternative for users wanting to import their own wallet, satisfying the when/when-not guidance.

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