fmod_ui_widgetType

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that the tool reads or modifies the widgetType property, has no side effects, or requires any specific conditions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 short (one sentence) but it is not optimally concise because it fails to include essential information. It is adequate in length but lacks clarity.

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 that there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description should clearly explain the tool's purpose as a getter/setter. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand its full functionality.

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 single parameter 'value' is well-described in the schema ('New value to assign. Omit to read the current value.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says it's an enumeration of widget types but doesn't state that the tool gets or sets the widgetType property of a UI widget. The schema implies a getter/setter via the optional 'value' parameter, but the description is unclear and could mislead the agent into thinking it's just a static enum lookup.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like fmod_ui_alignment or fmod_ui_layoutType. The description does not differentiate it from other UI property tools or explain its context.

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