Get server widget

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

The description adds the specific fields returned (enabled state, invite channel) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't disclose additional behaviors like default guild handling or error cases, but the annotation already covers the read-only nature.

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?

Seven words, zero filler, front-loaded. Extremely concise while conveying the key output fields.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data is returned. It could mention the response shape, but the tool is straightforward.

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 only parameter 'guild' is fully described in the schema (name or ID, omit for default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies the resource (server widget) and the exact settings returned (enabled state and invite channel). The 'get' verb is in the name, and the sibling tool 'update_server_widget' clearly distinguishes this as the read counterpart.

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 this tool is for reading existing widget settings without modifying them. No explicit when-to-use or comparison to alternatives is provided, but the name and sibling update tool make the context clear.

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