Get a widget's properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it's read-only (returns properties), but doesn't disclose return format, whether widgetName must be unique across pages, how errors surface for non-existent widgets, or whether it requires the page to be published vs draft state. For a read operation with no annotations, minimal risk, but even basic output behavior is undocumented.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and differentiation; the second provides concrete usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple 2-param read tool with 100% schema coverage, this is largely adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could usefully note what a typical response looks like or confirm it's a safe non-mutating call. The 'without dumping the whole layout' note adds value over sibling get_page, but completeness for an unannotated tool could be stronger.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. widgetName has a helpful example ('spoa') and explanation. The description adds the purpose of retrieving values 'before editing' but no additional param detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers everything.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Returns one widget's properties from a page'. Clearly distinguishes from get_page ('without dumping the whole layout') and related sibling tools like update_widget, clone_widget. States the exact scope of what it retrieves.

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?

Description implies usage context ('Use this to see current values before editing'), suggesting it pairs with update_widget. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when get_page is more appropriate for whole layout inspection), nor name alternative tools explicitly. The before-editing hint is useful but not comprehensive.

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