get_demo_wallet

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds significant detail: it always enumerates personas regardless of state, specifies response format, and explains the matrix enrichment (rehearsableFlows, flowGaps, recommendations). No contradictions.

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 verbose and contains multiple paragraphs with interleaved details. While all information is valuable, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for response shape or matrix explanation) to improve readability for an agent. It's functional but not lean.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully defines the response structure including all fields and their meanings. It covers edge cases (envState values, matrix enrichment) and provides complete guidance for the agent to act on the result. The complexity is high, and the description meets it.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. With no parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly mentions that no input is required.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: report active demo wallet, confirm default demo mode, or explain why demo mode isn't active. It also enumerates personas and provides response structure, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_demo_wallet and exit_demo_mode.

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 advises reading matrix data before user picks a flow to offer rehearsable flows and avoid unsupported ones. While it provides usage context, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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