get_widget_properties

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('read') and supports all FProperty types, but does not explain behavior for missing widgets, return format, or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that quickly communicates the tool's core function. It is efficient and front-loaded, earning its place without unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal given the tool's four parameters and zero schema coverage. It omits critical details like the filter parameter's usage and the meaning of include_inherited, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain any of the four parameters (widget_blueprint_path, widget_name, filter, include_inherited). While widget_blueprint_path and widget_name are somewhat clear from their names, filter and include_inherited are ambiguous, and no additional meaning is provided.

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 tool reads all property values from a widget, using the verb 'read' to indicate a read-only operation. It explicitly mentions support for all FProperty types, distinguishing it from sibling write tools like set_widget_properties.

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 set_widget_properties or other widget-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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