wordpress_get_widgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' but does not clarify that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or whether any authentication or permissions are required. The description also implies a sidebar-filtering capability without explaining how it works or what data is returned.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary verbiage, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details about sidebar filtering and output. Still, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'widgets' means in this context (e.g., widget instances vs widget types) and how sidebar filtering is supposed to work without parameters. The current description leaves these aspects ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for no parameters is 4. However, the description explicitly mentions 'or widgets in a specific sidebar,' which implies a filtering capability that is not supported by any parameter. This mismatch between description and schema undermines the semantic clarity of the tool's capabilities.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('widgets'), and additionally distinguishes between all widgets and widgets in a specific sidebar. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool wordpress_get_widget_types, which may cause some confusion about whether 'widgets' means widget instances or widget types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_get_widget_types or wordpress_get_sidebars. It lacks any contextual cues or explicit exclusions, which is a significant gap given the many sibling tools.

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