connect_browser_wallet

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it blocks until user action or 5-min timeout, opens a browser window, requires user approval, and states that all subsequent write operations will use this wallet. This covers user experience and side effects well.

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 and well-structured, with each sentence adding value: purpose, security comparison, user flow, timeout, and post-connection behavior. No redundant words.

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 interactive nature of the tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, security advantage, user action required, timeout, and impact on subsequent operations. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied as a successful connection.

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 one parameter (address) has 100% schema coverage, and the description adds that if set, the user must connect exactly that address, which is useful additional meaning. No further elaboration needed for a single optional parameter.

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 ('connect to a browser wallet'), specifies supported wallets (TronLink, TokenPocket), and distinguishes from sibling tools that are mostly other operations like approve, borrow, etc., making it clear this is the connection tool.

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 recommends this over 'agent-wallet' due to security, giving a clear usage preference. It explains the user interaction (opens browser window, user approval, timeout). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives beyond agent-wallet.

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