wallet_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is sensitive secret material (a private key) and that a password is required to decrypt, but it says nothing about whether the secret is logged/audited, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate or security constraints on repeated exports.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource leads and the prerequisite follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition is minimally adequate: parameters are covered by the schema and the sensitivity of the result is hinted at. It omits what the export actually returns (raw hex string vs. JSON envelope) and any warning about handling the exposed secret, which an agent would benefit from.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including that the password decrypts the keystore. The description's 'requires password to decrypt' merely restates the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource: exporting a stored private key, which is distinct from wallet_get_public_key or the wallet_sign_* siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings (e.g., 'reveals the secret key material, unlike get_public_key'), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The parenthetical about the password is a prerequisite, not routing guidance; an agent gets no help deciding between wallet_export and wallet_get_public_key.

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