list_agent_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication context ('agent key: own wallet only'), which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what specific 'status' values mean. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and hints at authentication context, but doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of balances/status) or potential limitations. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for proper use.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and context.

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's purpose: 'List all agent wallets with their balances and status'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('agent wallets'), and includes scope details ('with their balances and status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent_balance' or 'check_channel_balance', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance through the parenthetical note 'agent key: own wallet only', suggesting this tool is for viewing one's own wallets when authenticated with an agent key. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_agent_balance' or 'list_channels', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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