get_portal_widget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the exact components returned (HTML, CSS, client/server scripts), setting expectations beyond the annotations. No contradiction; the description complements the structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with a clear description and readOnly annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists the output contents explicitly. Lacking an output schema, one might expect a bit more about return format, but the description covers the essential expectations for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id_or_sysid' fully described in the schema (e.g., 'widget-cool-clock'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('full source code ... of a Service Portal widget'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_portal_widgets (listing widgets) or get_portal_page (page source). It enumerates what the source code includes (HTML, CSS, client/server scripts), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 its usage context: retrieving the full source code for a single widget. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'full source code' wording clearly differentiates from listing widgets. Clear context without explicit exclusions earns a 4.

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