Get server widget

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a read operation. The description adds that it returns 'enabled state and invite channel', but does not disclose any permissions needed, error conditions, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal additional 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key information. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though it could benefit from a slightly more detailed enumeration of return 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?

Given the simple parameter and existing annotations, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without an output schema, the agent might benefit from an explicit mention of the return object structure or any special behavior (e.g., default guild handling is in schema but not repeated). The description is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'guild', which already explains that it can be omitted to use the default guild. The tool description does not add any further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves server widget settings, specifically 'enabled state and invite channel'. The verb 'get' and resource 'server widget' are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_server_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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., update_server_widget). The readOnlyHint annotation implies it's for reading, but the description itself offers no guidance.

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