list_weapons

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that results include attack modes and stats — useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about result volume, default/max values of 'limit', or whether an empty query returns everything.

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 with no filler; every clause (categories, name/type matching, attack modes and stats) carries information. Slightly list-heavy but efficient.

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 absence of an output schema makes the note about returned attack modes and stats valuable, but the description leaves open how 'limit' behaves and how the arbitrary 'type' strings from the schema combine with 'query'. Adequate for a simple read tool, not fully complete.

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 67%; the description's 'by name or type' loosely maps to 'query' and 'type', which the schema already documents in more detail. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Find') and resource ('weapons') and enumerates the covered weapon categories (primary, secondary, melee, Exalted, Archwing, companion), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_warframes and search_mods. It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'by name or type' phrasing implies a lookup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to weapon_build, suggest_weapon_build, or list_modular_parts. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before the build tools.

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