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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates read-like behavior but does not explicitly state nondestructive nature, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. The 'without editor usernames' detail adds 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words conveys the core purpose and key behavioral detail. No extraneous information; every word 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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what it returns and the key parameter tradeoffs. It could mention the nature of the response (e.g., list of changes), but the core behavior is sufficiently communicated.

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 property descriptions), so the description adds value by clarifying that 'source' selects between two wikis (GWW vs PvX) and that 'limit' controls number of changes. The interval details are already in schema, so additional clarity is provided without redundancy.

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 'return', the resource 'recent public changes from Guild Wars Wiki or PvXwiki', and a notable exclusion 'without editor usernames'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like gw1_wiki_search and gw1_wiki_page.

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 via the available source parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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