Get Wallets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated user', or what happens if no wallets exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for what it needs to communicate.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about behavioral traits (especially with no annotations) and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to cover that aspect.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space explaining parameters that don't exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 wallets') and resource ('wallets accessible to the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_wallet_balance (which focuses on balance) or get_shared_wallets (which focuses on shared wallets only). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shared_wallets or get_wallet_balance. It mentions 'accessible to the authenticated user' but doesn't clarify if this includes shared wallets, personal wallets only, or how it differs from other wallet-related tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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