wdk_get_swap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (get status) with no side effects implied. The optional filter is disclosed. No mention of permissions or rate limits, but sufficient for a query tool.

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 sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and optional parameter. No wasted words, info is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides adequate context to use the tool. It could be improved by hinting at the return format (e.g., swap status fields), but for a status check it's sufficient.

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 both parameters are documented. The description adds context: 'payment_hash from kaleidoswap_atomic_init' and clarifies the taker parameter's default behavior ('both').

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'atomic swap status' with a clear identifier 'payment_hash'. It mentions usage context after kaleidoswap_atomic_execute, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool wdk_list_swaps.

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 explicit when to use: 'Use after kaleidoswap_atomic_execute to confirm the node-side swap state.' It also gives optional usage for taker-side filtering, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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