List widgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the endpoint was inferred from observed web-app traffic and results should be verified, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what a widget record contains.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. The parenthetical route and 'Query params seen:' phrasing are terse without being wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and offers only 'the endpoint's JSON response', leaving the shape of widget objects unknown. Adequate to call the tool, thin for interpreting results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes only the dashboard_id query param and adds no semantics (format, filtering effect, whether omitting it returns all widgets) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List widgets') and gives the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/widgets, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explain what a widget is in this domain or how this differs from dashboard-level siblings like singleops_read_get_dashboard.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many list_* siblings. The only contextual note is a caution ('confirm results'), which is a reliability warning rather than routing guidance.

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