Wallet Export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the export is encrypted with the provided password and that it covers all wallets in the local keystore. However, it doesn't mention whether the export is destructive, whether it requires prior wallet creation, or what the output format looks like beyond 'keystore JSON'. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary detail about encryption and scope. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit output details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered there. The description explains the purpose and encryption behavior, but for a backup/export tool with no annotations, it would benefit from stating whether the operation is safe/read-only, whether it overwrites anything, and what the user should do with the output. It's adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the password parameter. The description adds that the password is used to encrypt the export, which aligns with the schema's default value. It doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 exports an encrypted keystore JSON for backup, with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('encrypted keystore JSON'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_import and wallet_list by specifying the backup/export purpose.

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 implies when to use it: when a backup of all wallets is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'backup' and 'all wallets' provides clear usage context. Sibling names like wallet_import and wallet_list help differentiate, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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