get_widget_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description supplies the return shape (hierarchy fields, widget_valid flag), which is valuable because no output schema exists. It does not add permission or rate-limit context, but the return detail is the main missing behavioral information and it is provided.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes the return structure. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return shape is compact yet informative. No sentence is wasted.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides the missing return-value context because no output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears absent.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines widget_name as 'Name of the widget to query.' The description adds no further parameter semantics such as accepted naming conventions or path formats. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the widget hierarchy tree including parent, children, and nested structure information.' This clearly indicates it returns hierarchy data for a widget. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_widget_blueprint_tree, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names conditions that select it over siblings such as get_widget_blueprint_tree or get_widget_properties, nor states any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage is only that it answers hierarchy queries.

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