widget_get_children

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a specific default behavior when parent_name is omitted ('returns the root widget plus the root panel's immediate children') and references a KB doc. However, it doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens when parent_name is provided, or the exact return format beyond the schema. The behavioral context is partial.

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 compact and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a specific behavioral note, a KB reference, and an illustrative example. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 common usage (listing children) and the omitted-parameter case, but it lacks details on the behavior when parent_name is explicitly provided and doesn't mention error handling or edge cases. Since an output schema exists, the return format is already specified, but the conditional logic is incompletely described, making the description somewhat incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of omitting parent_name and gives an example for widget_blueprint_path, which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't define what parent_name represents when provided, nor does it specify the format or constraints for widget_blueprint_path beyond the example. It adds meaning but not comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 action: listing children in a Widget Blueprint tree. It clearly identifies the resource and the operation, distinguishing it from mutation tools like widget_add_child or widget_set_property. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also inspect widget hierarchy, so it's clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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 implies usage for inspecting widget hierarchy through the phrase 'List children' and provides an example call. It mentions a knowledge base reference for further context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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