lw_address

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

The description mentions idempotency when index is omitted, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The QR code return is noted.

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 sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the key output detail (qr_code_path) without extraneous 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?

The description lacks details about the return format beyond the QR code path. With no output schema, the agent may need to infer the structure of the address and other possible fields. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a parameter-free tool.

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 the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It repeats the idempotent behavior of the index parameter but does not explain wallet_name or any parameter constraints.

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 'Generate a receive address' and mentions the QR code output. The verb-resource is specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like btc_address or lightning_receive, which serve similar purposes for different networks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as btc_address or lightning_receive. No context is provided for when to omit the index or specify it beyond the schema description.

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