wdk_list_swaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the tool lists splits by side but omits details like pagination, permissions, or read-only nature. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and use case. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it does and its purpose. It implies the output structure (split by side). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of swaps with maker/taker fields').

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 no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). With no parameters, the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. It does not mention parameters, which is acceptable given none exist.

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 that the tool lists all atomic swaps on the RLN node, specifying the resource (atomic swaps), the action (list), and a distinguishing detail (split by maker and taker side). It differentiates from siblings like wdk_get_swap (single swap) and wdk_atomic_taker (different operation).

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?

It mentions 'useful for monitoring active and historical atomic swap activity,' which indicates when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, limiting its directive clarity.

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