list_widget_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists instances, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all instances or is paginated, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation with 2 parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key contextual elements like output format, pagination, or permissions. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective use.

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 schema already documents both parameters (widget_sys_id and limit) fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a widget_sys_id is, where to find it, or how the limit parameter affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('instances of a specific widget placed on portal pages'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from other list_* tools by specifying widget instances rather than widgets themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_portal_widgets' (which likely lists widget definitions, not instances), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid widget_sys_id), when not to use it, or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like 'get_portal_widget' for widget details or 'list_portal_pages' for page context).

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