Read GW1 wiki recent changes

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.