get_wallet_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only aggregation but never states that it only reads journals, where the data comes from, how lifetime sums are scoped (commander vs. all journals), or what happens when the journal directory is absent.

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?

It is only one line, so nothing is wasted, but the telegraphic 'Credits now + lifetime ... sums' phrasing is cryptic rather than efficient. Front-loading the returned quantities is good; the missing verb makes it read like a field list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, which lowers the bar considerably. Still, for a tool whose only input is an unexplained optional journal_dir and with zero annotations, the description leaves an agent guessing about data source and scoping.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter journal_dir is undocumented in both schema and description. The description could have explained which journal source the summary reads from, but instead says nothing about the 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 names the resource (wallet summary) and enumerates the returned figures — current credits plus lifetime MarketBuy/MarketSell/MissionCompleted totals — which separates it from get_commander_status. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it describes the payload rather than stating 'return the commander's wallet totals'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that journal data must exist), and no routing to sibling tools such as get_commander_status or get_journal_history. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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