wave_get_widgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful context by disclosing the data source (~/.waveterm/widgets.json), which implies a local file read, but says nothing about behavior when the file is absent or malformed, nor about whether the read reflects on-disk state versus runtime state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and source are both delivered before any trailing detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to select the tool. The one remaining gap is that with no output schema an agent doesn't know the shape of returned widget records (names, IDs, fields), though this is a minor omission for a simple listing call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema property bag is empty and consistent with the description's 'all widgets' scope.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precisely scoped resource ('all custom widgets configured in Wave Terminal'), with the backing file named. This clearly separates it from the mutation siblings wave_create_widget / wave_update_widget / wave_delete_widget, though it doesn't address whether fish widgets (wave_create_fish_widget) are included in the listing.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. For a zero-parameter read-only listing the usage is largely implied by the name and verb, so the gap is minor rather than misleading, but an agent gets no routing guidance.

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