get_widget_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are scoped to 'one retail patch', implying version-specific output, but does not disclose return structure or edge cases like missing widgets. This is consistent with annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a basic outline. It omits guidance on return format and how to choose between this and sibling lookup/search tools, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including descriptions for name, version, and include_inherited. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics; the phrase 'in one retail patch' loosely maps to the version parameter but adds no new information beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'ScriptObject or FrameXML intrinsic widget and its public methods', which clarifies it focuses on widget methods rather than general API lookups. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_enum or get_event by the widget-specific scope, but the phrasing 'widget and its public methods' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns the widget itself or just methods.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_api or search_api. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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