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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behaviors. It does mention that author fields are omitted unless includeAuthors is true, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or the format of results, leaving gaps.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a key behavioral detail. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'search' entails (e.g., matching behavior, fields searched), the return format, or any limitations. Sibling tools are similar but the description does not help an agent understand when the tool is the right choice.

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 description clarifies the effect of the includeAuthors parameter (authored fields omitted unless true) and hints that source selects between two data sources. However, it does not explain limit, query, or the source enum beyond the provided values. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter detail would be beneficial.

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 the action ('Search') and resource ('GW1 Builds public API and/or PvXwiki build pages'), with a specific behavioral note. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like gw1_content_search, which could be used for similar queries.

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 implies usage for searching build-specific content from two sources, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gw1_subreddit_search or gw1_wiki_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool searches only 'current public content', which is a behavioral boundary, but it does not mention possible rate limits, latency, or that it queries external live endpoints. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but no added detail beyond that.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word 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?

The description lacks any mention of the return format or result structure, despite there being no output schema. It also does not explain how this tool relates to the sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. a single-source search). For a multi-source aggregator, this leaves gaps in an agent's ability to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 schema has zero descriptions, but the description maps the cryptic enum values (wiki, pvx, etc.) to human-readable source names. However, it does not explain the query, includeAuthors, or limitPerSource parameters, though those are reasonably inferable from their names and schema defaults.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resources (Guild Wars Wiki, PvXwiki, GW1 Builds, YouTube, r/GuildWars) plus a scope qualifier ('current public content'). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-source sibling tools like gw1_wiki_search or gw1_subreddit_search.

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 implies a multi-source search use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling single-source tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden but only states 'Parse'. No disclosure of side effects, caching, rate limits, or return format.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks important details. Appropriate length for a simple tool, but could be more informative.

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?

Tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema; description does not cover return format or context of use. Incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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 0% and description does not mention parameters at all. No meaning added beyond schema defaults.

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 the verb 'Parse' and resource 'recent game-update sections from the Guild Wars Wiki Game updates page.' It distinguishes from siblings like gw1_wiki_page and gw1_wiki_recent_changes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: opt-in, no default scanning, root specification, and path redaction. However, it omits details about maxDepth, maxEntries, and other params that affect behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy, all information is front-loaded. Each sentence adds necessary context.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return value format or behavior of multiple parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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 0%, yet the description only explains 'roots' and 'redactPaths' implicitly. It fails to describe maxDepth, maxEntries, useEnvRoots, and includeHeaderHashes, leaving significant gaps.

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 it is an opt-in local scanner for Guild Wars installs or VMware Fusion bundles, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are online searches or wiki pages. The verb 'scan' and resource 'local inventory' are specific.

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 provides guidance on when to use (opt-in, never scans defaults) and how to specify roots (explicit or env var), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature and the exact information it returns (source, extraction time, revision, hash). It implies no side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds relevant detail. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully explains its purpose and output. No additional information is needed.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% automatically. The description adds context about the output but not parameter-specific details, which is not needed.

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 the tool reports provenance of the bundled skill index, specifying the source, extraction time, wiki revision, and content hash. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique focus on data freshness assessment.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to judge how stale template decode/encode data is, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool lists public sources and an opt-in inventory. It does not mention whether authentication is required, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand what it returns. However, it might benefit from mentioning the format or scope (e.g., 'all known' vs 'partial'). Still, for a simple list tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 the tool lists public GW1 sources and the opt-in local inventory surface. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'gw1_local_inventory' tool, though the mention of 'opt-in local inventory surface known to this server' suggests a possible distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gw1_local_inventory or other source-related tools. The description lacks context about typical use cases or exclusion criteria.

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

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

The description discloses that author fields are conditionally included and that results are in Atom format, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, or validation rules.

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 with no extraneous information. The key behavioral constraint (author omission) 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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return value format or the impact of parameters like sort and limit.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for the includeAuthors parameter. It does not explain sort, limit, maxCharacters, or the nature of the query parameter, leaving significant gaps.

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 the tool searches r/GuildWars using public Atom results and specifies that author fields are omitted unless includeAuthors is true. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gw1_builds_search and gw1_content_search.

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 implies usage for subreddit searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for when-not to use are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the decode behavior (professions, attributes, skills via bundled index) but omits details on invalid input handling, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. It states the action truthfully but could be more comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and decoding details. It is front-loaded with the main verbs. No wasted words, though it could be broken into smaller sentences for readability.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description gives a good overview of the input (template code) and output (professions, attributes, skills). It does not explain error behavior or output format, but for a single-input tool, the main use case is adequately covered.

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 schema defines one input parameter with length constraints. The description calls it 'template/build code', which adds slight context beyond 'string', but does not explain expected format, examples, or encoding differences. With 0% schema coverage in descriptions, the value added over the schema is minimal.

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 specifies three main actions (validate, classify, decode) on a specific resource (GW1 template/build code). It lists the decoding outputs (professions, attributes, skills), making it distinct from sibling tools like gw1_template_encode or search tools.

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 implies when to use (when given a template code to analyze) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or explicit comparison to alternatives. For a tool with many siblings, stating that encoding is a separate tool would improve clarity, but it's not required.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return of a template code, a legality report with specific checks, per-skill costs, and an energy-sustainability outlook, giving a comprehensive view of behavior.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return values. It lacks details on error handling or exact output format, but is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., skill names, attribute points).

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 tool name, title, and description clearly state it builds and encodes a GW1 skill template, specifying the action (build/encode), resource (skill template), and return values. It is well-distinguished from sibling tools like search or analysis tools.

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 using the tool 'to construct and sanity-check a build before sharing it,' providing clear context. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling tools imply different use cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it returns extracted text, links, categories, and revision metadata, and notably strips editor usernames. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it omits error handling or redirect behavior. Still, for a read-only fetch, it is fairly transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and output. No wasted words, and it is easy to parse.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the core functionality but lacks parameter semantics (especially the source enum and maxCharacters limit) and does not mention failure modes or output format details. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'title', 'source', or 'maxCharacters' at all, leaving the enum values (gww, pvx, scr) and character limit unexplained. The parameter names and schema offer some hints, but the description adds no value beyond them.

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 the tool fetches a page from Guild Wars Wiki or PvXwiki and returns extracted text, links, categories, and revision metadata. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or recent changes.

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 implies usage: use when you need page content from these wikis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use gw1_wiki_search to find pages first) or mention alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions, so a 4.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one key behavior (excluding editor usernames) but omits other important traits such as time window, pagination, response format, or rate limits. This is minimal but not completely empty.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Return', and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like, but it does not describe the return structure or contents. The 'scr' source is unexplained, the meaning of 'recent' is ambiguous, and no guidance on time windows or sorting is given. This under-specification leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description only partially explains the 'source' parameter by naming two wikis, while the enum includes a third 'scr' value that is left unexplained. The 'limit' parameter is not directly described, and the description does not clarify how 'recent' is defined.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource ('recent public changes') from Guild Wars Wiki or PvXwiki. It also adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without editor usernames') that sets it apart from wiki search and page retrieval tools.

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 implies the use case—retrieving recent wiki changes—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like gw1_wiki_search or gw1_wiki_page. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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

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 adds 'via their public MediaWiki APIs' which indicates public access, but it does not explain response format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple search tool, some behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core action and scope, earning its place with no redundancy.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but workable. It clarifies the data sources and public API nature, but lacks details about return values and result ordering, which would be needed for a fully self-contained description.

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%. The description does not explain 'query' or 'limit'; only the phrase 'or both' loosely maps to the 'source' enum. The schema itself provides defaults and enums, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resources (Guild Wars Wiki, PvXwiki, or both). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gw1_wiki_page or gw1_wiki_recent_changes by focusing on cross-wiki search.

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 implies a search use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gw1_wiki_page. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, though the purpose is reasonably clear from the title and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it lists curated feeds, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it lacks details like whether the list is static or updated frequently, or if authentication is needed.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Slightly more structure could improve clarity, but it is well 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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not cover what the output looks like (e.g., channel names, URLs) or how the scope affects the list, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 description does not explain the scope parameter or its enum values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent unaware of how to filter results.

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 the tool lists curated official and creator YouTube channel feeds for Guild Wars 1 and related content. It uses specific verbs and resources, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like gw1_sources or gw1_youtube_videos, the purpose is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only mentions fetching from curated RSS feeds and default filtering, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the recency bound for 'recent' videos.

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-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. 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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain key aspects like the scope of sources, result limits, or how to specify custom source IDs. Significant contextual gaps remain for an AI to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% (no descriptions on any of the 5 parameters). The description only vaguely references the 'query' parameter implicitly. No explanation is given for scope, maxTotal, sourceIds, or limitPerSource, leaving the agent without understanding parameter purpose.

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 the tool fetches recent videos from curated public YouTube RSS feeds and provides default filtering behavior without a query. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gw1_youtube_sources, which likely manages source curation, and other search tools.

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 implies that without a query the tool filters to Guild Wars 1/Reforged videos, suggesting query usage may broaden results. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gw1_content_search or gw1_wiki_search, and does not mention when not to use it.

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