list_widgets_in_page

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the output shape (id, type, parent path, excerpt) and a behavioral detail: only the first text setting is excerpted. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data scope.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the verb, resource, output fields, and purpose. No redundancy or irrelevant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description explains the output fields and use case but omits details like pagination, ordering, limits, or error conditions. The tool has an output schema so return values are partially covered, but the description could have mentioned that the list is flat (no nesting) or that widget_type can filter results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about the purpose of site_id, page_id, or widget_type. The schema itself is minimal (just types and requirements), so the agent lacks guidance on how to use these parameters. This is a significant gap.

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 lists every widget in a page with specific fields (id, type, parent path, excerpt of first text setting) and explicitly ties it to a use case (spot-checking before find/replace). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_global_widgets or read_widget.

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 a clear use case: 'for spot-checking before find/replace'. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, it implicitly advises using this for quick inspections rather than individual widget reads or updates. The context of spot-checking differentiates it from other list tools.

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