lw_export_descriptor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions the export purpose but does not disclose traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, any side effects, required permissions, or expected output format. For a read-like export, minimal disclosure may be acceptable, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence front-loading the action and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 single-parameter export tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any hint about the output format (since no output schema exists) and does not explain how the descriptor is structured, which could be important for downstream usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter (wallet_name), so the schema already explains it. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('CT descriptor for a wallet'), and includes the context 'for watch-only import elsewhere', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lw_import_descriptor or btc_export_descriptor.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' is given, the description's phrase 'for watch-only import elsewhere' provides clear context that this tool is intended for exporting a descriptor to be used in another wallet, implicitly guiding the agent when this export step is needed.

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