Search Blizzard's XML frame templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results show inheritance chain, attached mixins, and definition locations, which is useful behavioral info. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or other side effects, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: what it searches, what it shows, and a usage tip. No wasted 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 complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, key result content, and a practical use case. It does not detail return format or ordering, but the info provided is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), but none of the parameters are explained in the tool description itself. The 'limit' parameter has no description in either schema or description, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 Blizzard's virtual XML templates and shows inheritance chain, mixins, and definitions. It distinguishes the tool from writing frame art from scratch, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like wow_ui_mixin_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear usage context: use this to inherit Blizzard's look and behavior instead of creating frame art from scratch. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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