wordpress_get_widgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all widgets') and adds a clarifying option ('or widgets in a specific sidebar'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling. For a simple read tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete context for reliable agent use without additional assumptions.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by mentioning 'widgets in a specific sidebar,' which hints at potential filtering, but since there are no parameters, this is more about usage context than parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('widgets' or 'widgets in a specific sidebar'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_sidebar' or 'wordpress_get_sidebars', which might retrieve sidebar information rather than widgets within them, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 retrieving widgets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'wordpress_get_sidebar' for sidebar details or 'wordpress_get_widget_types' for widget types). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether sidebars must exist, or exclusions, making it minimal in guiding the agent.

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