List Wallets

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that no password is required and that addresses are stored in the clear alongside encrypted keys, with only spending requiring the password. It also specifies the output fields 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?

Three sentences all carry signal: the scope, the security-relevant behavior, and the downstream use. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler or repetition of the schema.

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, read-only listing with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it names the resource, included wallet types, every returned field, the auth requirement, and downstream tools that consume the output.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly spends no space on parameters.

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 specific action ('List every wallet stored in this server's encrypted wallet store'), identifies both ledger types, and enumerates the returned fields (name, ledger, address, zone). It clearly distinguishes this tool from create/import/send siblings by framing it as the enumeration endpoint.

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 the primary use ('Use this to find the walletName to pass to send_transaction, get_qi_balance, or convert_qi_to_quai') and clarifies that no password is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative lookup tools, but for a listing tool the context is clear enough.

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