widgets_get

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals key limitations (XQL only) and permission requirements. However, the example request uses 'name' instead of 'title', creating ambiguity about valid filter values and slightly undermining transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a note, and a permission requirement. The example is somewhat long but illustrative. The text earns its place overall, though the example's length could be trimmed and the field-name error fixed.

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 description covers the endpoint, permission, XQL-only scope, and provides a request example. It does not explicitly state filter combination logic (AND/OR) or return format, but for a simple get-by-filter tool with a detailed schema, this is largely adequate. The field-name error is the main completeness gap.

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?

The schema itself provides rich descriptions for the filter fields and operators. The description adds a concrete example, but that example uses 'name' for the field, which contradicts the schema's 'title' enum. This misleading example reduces the value added beyond the schema and risks incorrect invocation.

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 it retrieves widget details by filtering on widget title and creator. It also distinguishes the tool's scope by noting it only returns XQL widgets, not predefined widgets, setting it apart from widget insert/delete siblings.

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 an explicit when-not condition: it only returns XQL widgets, not predefined widgets. It also states the required Instance Administrator permission, which is critical usage guidance. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for predefined widgets.

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