List Agent Wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a safety-relevant behavior ('Does not decrypt or return private keys') and that it is read-only in nature, but says nothing about auth requirements, vault lock state, or behavior when no wallets exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the one negative constraint that matters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (wallet metadata and profile IDs) and what is excluded (private keys). It is nearly complete; a note on when the list may be empty or how wallets are ordered would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline for a 4. There are no parameters whose semantics could be clarified, so nothing more is required here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing local agent wallet metadata and profile IDs. Clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_wallets, agent_get_wallet, or agent_list_delegations, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description when to choose this over get_wallets or agent_get_wallet; the only implicit signal is that it lists rather than fetches a single wallet.

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