read_widget

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying 'full settings', indicating the scope of the returned data. This is consistent and adds minimal but useful behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second provides a crucial usage hint. Efficient 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?

The description covers the main purpose and gives a usage hint, but it lacks parameter details (e.g., site_id is optional, required params are page_id and widget_id). Given the zero schema coverage, more parameter guidance would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (e.g., which id corresponds to which field). It only mentions 'by id' without specifying that both page_id and widget_id are required. This leaves ambiguity for parameter selection.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'single widget's full settings by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_widgets_in_page' by indicating that this tool fetches a single widget's settings.

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 explicitly advises to use 'list_widgets_in_page' to find the widget id first, providing clear usage context and differentiation from alternatives.

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