list_wallets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: addresses are public and private keys are never stored. It also indicates the operation lists all saved wallets, implying no filtering. However, it does not describe the return format or edge cases like an empty list.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second adds a security clarifier, and every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the action, resource, and a key security property. It falls short only in explaining the exact response structure, but that is largely inferable from the described purpose.

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 zero parameters, which warrants a baseline score of 4. The description reinforces that all wallets are listed without any filtering, aligning perfectly with the absence of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all saved Qubic wallet addresses'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_wallet and remove_wallet. The inclusion of 'Qubic' and 'saved' clarifies the exact scope.

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 usage by stating the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_wallet or remove_wallet. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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