botwallet_wallet_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('List', 'Shows', 'reads'), specifies the data source ('~/.botwallet/config.json'), and mentions it's shared with the CLI. It doesn't cover potential errors, permissions, or rate limits, but provides useful operational 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key output (default wallet), the second adds crucial implementation context (config file, CLI sharing). Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what it does, where data comes from, and integration context. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., list of wallet objects) or error cases, but it's largely adequate.

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, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 specific action ('List all locally configured wallets') and resource ('wallets'), distinguishing it from siblings like botwallet_balance (check balance) or botwallet_wallet_import (import wallet). It also adds scope details about showing the default wallet and reading from a specific config file.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: to list locally configured wallets and identify the default. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., botwallet_info might provide different wallet details).

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