List widgets

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the optional sidebar filtering and the fact that settings and rendered output are returned, which is useful, but it does not address pagination, ordering, or response envelope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 13-word sentence that fronts the core operation ('List widgets'), states the optional filter, and names the returned content. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with two documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the optional scoping, and the return content (settings and rendered output). Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameter semantics, so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with both sidebar and site_id fully documented. The description merely reinforces the optionality of the sidebar filter and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List widgets') and immediately clarifies the optional scope ('within one sidebar') and the payload content ('including their settings and rendered output'). This clearly distinguishes it from widget mutation tools and from list_sidebars.

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 gives clear context by stating that listing can be restricted to one sidebar, which tells an agent when to supply the sidebar parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_sidebars or update_widget, but the read-only listing purpose is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.

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