Get widget settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the exact shape matches update_widget_settings, the widget_not_found error condition, and the guarantee that alerts always exist. This provides meaningful context not derivable from annotations alone, though it doesn't cover every possible edge case.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds essential information (purpose, usage pattern, error behavior). There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema fields, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool reads, in what context (active scene), which widget types are supported, how the result relates to a sibling tool, and the known error condition. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (widget_type and format) are fully described in the schema with enums and comments, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't improve on the baseline. However, it does clarify the overall context of 'active scene' which indirectly helps parameter understanding.

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 the tool reads the current settings JSON for a widget in the active scene, specifies the widget types (alert, chat, goal, prediction), and distinguishes it from the sibling update_widget_settings by noting the returned shape is exactly what that tool accepts. This makes the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it's the read step before making changes to widget settings, and it references the sibling update_widget_settings as the companion write tool. It also explains the widget_not_found error and that alerts always exist, which helps the agent decide when this tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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