inspect_widget_tree

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only ('Read'), but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose details such as return format, permissions, or what exactly 'widget hierarchy' entails. It adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 12-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, especially about the parameter, which could be included without much expansion.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description does not provide enough context. It omits parameter semantics and return value expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'path' is not explained at all in the description. The agent is left to guess whether it requires a file path, asset path, or other identifier, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 'Read the widget hierarchy' which is a specific verb and resource, and it specifies the types of blueprints it operates on (UWidgetBlueprint or UEditorUtilityWidgetBlueprint), distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_widget_blueprint.

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 implies usage for reading widget hierarchy of specific blueprints, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools like edit_widget_tree or other inspect tools.

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