Search GW1 wikis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using 'public MediaWiki APIs' but discloses no details about rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or response format. It is insufficient for an agent to assess impact.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not specify return structure (e.g., titles, snippets, URLs), pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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. It adds minimal meaning beyond property names: it relates 'source' to the two wikis but does not explain values ('gww', 'pvx', 'both'), nor does it add context for 'query' or 'limit' beyond basic constraints.

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), the specific resources (Guild Wars Wiki, PvXwiki), and the mechanism (public MediaWiki APIs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gw1_wiki_page, which retrieves a single page, and gw1_builds_search, which is for builds.

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?

While the description implies usage for searching the specified wikis, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use gw1_wiki_page for direct page access or how to choose between sources.

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