imgui_get_widget_rect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a bounding box in pixel coordinates, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the widget must be currently rendered/visible, whether it returns correct values before a draw pass, or whether it requires the widget to exist. The word 'actual rendered' hints at needing a render pass but isn't explicit.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded purpose. Without verbosity for a conceptually 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 read-only geometry query with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (bounding box) and in what units (pixel coordinates). Minor gap: no statement about what happens for hidden/nonexistent widgets, but this is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% (both params have descriptions). The description adds the 'rendered' and 'pixel coordinates' context beyond the schema, which is helpful for interpreting the returned values, but doesn't add specifics about id/window format or behavior for missing widgets. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the actual rendered bounding box of a widget in pixel coordinates' uses a clear verb (get) with specific resource (rendered bounding box of a widget) and clarifies the units (pixel coordinates). It's distinct from sibling imgui_get_window_rect (window-level) and imgui_get_layout, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving widget geometry, but doesn't explain when to prefer this over imgui_get_layout, imgui_get_window_rect, or related geometry tools. Usage context is inferred but not stated.

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