get_widget_properties

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description isn't obligated to restate that. It goes further by enumerating the concrete fields returned, including which are optional (size, position, rotation, scale, parent info), which is real behavioral value for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return shape. The field list is long but earns its place because no output_schema is declared; nothing is wasted on preamble or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting the return object, so an agent knows what it will get. Remaining gaps are minor: no failure behavior for an invalid widget name and no indication of editor-vs-PIE applicability despite numerous PIE-specific widget siblings.

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% for the single widget_name parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the phrase 'by name', which restates the schema rather than adding scope, naming convention, or path-vs-label disambiguation. Baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve detailed properties and state information for a widget by name.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_widget_hierarchy or get_widget_blueprint_tree, which return structure rather than a single widget's property set, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 only usage cue is the lookup key ('by name'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_widget_hierarchy, list_widget_property_bindings, or read_pie_widgets, no note about whether it works on editor widgets vs PIE runtime widgets, and no error guidance for an unknown widget name.

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