mhw_weapons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't say whether results are paginated, what the default limit behavior is, whether the type filter is exact match or fuzzy, or what happens when no type is given. A read-only browsing tool should at minimum indicate it is a safe read operation.

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 short sentence that is perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler words, no redundancy, appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 is simple (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is silent on return shape, pagination, and type format specifics beyond the schema examples. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to call confidently.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('type' with examples, 'limit' with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Browse) and resource (Monster Hunter World weapons) with a filtering dimension (by type). It is clear what the tool returns a list of. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like mhw_monsters, though the resource name makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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 or when not to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or context. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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